Orthodox Church in the Pope's perception

[zhilan]

I posted this in OBOB, but I think now it's probably better hear.

What do we make of the Pope's recent statements?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/10/world/main3037922.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3037922

[zhilan]

My opinion is that I'm glad to see this.

Catholics here and the Catholic church in general keeps trying to tell Orthodox that we are really the same and there is no difference, which I think is one of the biggest problems between the two churches because the Orthodox do see differences and we see it as very condescending when Catholic try to tell us otherwise.

So thank you Pope Benedict for laying the cards on the table. Honestly, I think this is the first step towards unity. Being blind or denying differences doesn't do a thing. Thank you for having the honesty to say to our face "yes we think you are wrong." That is the only way we will ever be able to begin having discussions.

[RadixLecti]

I posted this in OBOB, but I think now it's probably better hear.

What do we make of the Pope's recent statements?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/10/world/main3037922.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3037922
It just means the Pope is Catholic. Most of us are in the churches we are because we believe they are the truest form of Christianity. I would expect nothing less of the leader of the Catholic church than to promote the beliefs of the Catholic church.

[karen freeinchristman]

My opinion is that I'm glad to see this.

Catholics here and the Catholic church in general keeps trying to tell Orthodox that we are really the same and there is no difference, which I think is one of the biggest problems between the two churches because the Orthodox do see differences and we see it as very condescending when Catholic try to tell us otherwise.

So thank you Pope Benedict for laying the cards on the table. Honestly, I think this is the first step towards unity. Being blind or denying differences doesn't do a thing. Thank you for having the honesty to say to our face "yes we think you are wrong." That is the only way we will ever be able to begin having discussions.
That's a good way of looking at it.

[geocajun]

I posted this in OBOB, but I think now it's probably better hear.

What do we make of the Pope's recent statements?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/10/world/main3037922.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3037922
I think they were all right :)

[WarriorAngel]

The Pope didnt say anything wrong.

He said the Schismed Churches were valid in their sacraments.
I believe he knows a lot about what is believed.

He has had conferences with the Patriarch's.

I am sure when they hashed stuff they found some common grounds in the differences.

IMO differences are only a matter of perception. Not concrete fact.

[a_ntv]

My opinion is that I'm glad to see this.

Catholics here and the Catholic church in general keeps trying to tell Orthodox that we are really the same and there is no difference, which I think is one of the biggest problems between the two churches because the Orthodox do see differences and we see it as very condescending when Catholic try to tell us otherwise.
.

Well the document (not the pope) says the Orthodox Churches (EO+OO+ACoE) simply LACK of the COMMUNION WITH the POPE

Nothing else: no other thelogical issues.

PS: i suggest to read the original (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html)doument, that is more clear than the news about it

[Oblio]

Nothing else: no other thelogical issues.


That in itself is a dividing issue :)

[WarriorAngel]

That in itself is a dividing issue :)

:wave: Hi Oblio.

Can I pick your brain and ask why...? :)

[Oblio]

It is dividing because some Catholics and most Protestants BTW, believe that we have a common theological basis. We do not. Until that is recognized, we cannot discuss the issues that divide us. The current Pope has taken a step in the right direction.

[zhilan]

It is dividing because some Catholics and most Protestants BTW, believe that we have a common theological basis. We do not. Until that is recognized, we cannot discuss the issues that divide us. The current Pope has taken a step in the right direction.
ditto

[EmperorConstantine]

It is dividing because some Catholics and most Protestants BTW, believe that we have a common theological basis. We do not. Until that is recognized, we cannot discuss the issues that divide us. The current Pope has taken a step in the right direction.
So true.

I really can't help but respect his honesty. Granted, I don't agree with what he said, but he didn't sugar-coat it or water it down.

Besides, when was the last time we've seen a Western heirarch of sorts reaffirming something important?

[WarriorAngel]

It is dividing because some Catholics and most Protestants BTW, believe that we have a common theological basis. We do not. Until that is recognized, we cannot discuss the issues that divide us. The current Pope has taken a step in the right direction.

Well, we do have a common background, so it is not that we do not, but rather that we see the theology different and therefore according to our languages & cultural leanings, the theology becomes a dispute.

[EmperorConstantine]

Well, we do have a common background, so it is not that we do not, but rather that we see the theology different and therefore according to our languages & cultural leanings, the theology becomes a dispute.
*cough*Filioque!*cough*

:)

[eoe]

re: OP - I like that this new Pope is actually saying it like he sees it. The honesty is refreshing. How can we deal with one another if we can not admit what we really feel?

Yes there are some pretty major theological differences - if you think there aren't then you simply demonstrate that you don't really know what it is that the other side really believes. It really does not help anything if we try to downplay the importance or relevance of the differences.


but rather that we see the theology different and therefore according to our languages & cultural leanings, the theology becomes a dispute.
Perhaps this is true for some but it is not for me. I am of German descent and American born. My Grandfather was a baptist minister. I had never been exposed to any eastern cultures or languages at all until *after* I decided to convert.

Again - there are some big differences and they are NOT the result of cultural or linguistic bias.

[WarriorAngel]

re: OP - I like that this new Pope is actually saying it like he sees it. The honesty is refreshing. How can we deal with one another if we can not admit what we really feel?

Yes there are some pretty major theological differences - if you think there aren't then you simply demonstrate that you don't really know what it is that the other side really believes. It really does not help anything if we try to downplay the importance or relevance of the differences.


Perhaps this is true for some but it is not for me. I am of German descent and American born. My Grandfather was a baptist minister. I had never been exposed to any eastern cultures or languages at all until *after* I decided to convert.

Again - there are some big differences and they are NOT the result of cultural or linguistic bias.

I am American German/Irish. :wave:

It's still relative to the forefathers of the Church. IMO.
For instance, we are talking a concept the Apostles taught, but the concept is distinct to the culture. HOW they speak it to mean.

For instance, Infallibility.

The whole Church has it, or it would be moot point to have the title of Apostolic without the realization that it means in that order, the Church cannot teach error.

BUT you see it differently, because the Pope as single leader has retained the title in his dealings ex cathedra.
Ex Cathedra meaning defining the same doctrines as was always taught, but speaking them in a time against heretics, when it is called for. [Making them a 'sticky' for all intents and purposes]

Demonstrating the same truths written about by the APostles and the ECF's and the scriptures the ECF's used....etc

He is only infallible in that he is a leader of the Church and since the Church is infallible, teaching accurate truths since the Apostles...
'The gates of hell shall not prevail..'
Then we know he cannot do otherwise but teach the truth in the same capacity being led by the Spirit to do so.

Its about perception.
Always has been.

And that leads me to the question...
IS your Church infallible?

And if it is, can your leaders at any time teach anything contrary to the truth and change the teachings?

IE...the Holy Spirit will not allow corruption to overcome the truth.

[zhilan]

I am American German/Irish. :wave:

It's still relative to the forefathers of the Church. IMO.
For instance, we are talking a concept the Apostles taught, but the concept is distinct to the culture. HOW they speak it to mean.

For instance, Infallibility.

The whole Church has it, or it would be moot point to have the title of Apostolic without the realization that it means in that order, the Church cannot teach error.

BUT you see it differently, because the Pope as single leader has retained the title in his dealings ex cathedra.
Ex Cathedra meaning defining the same doctrines as was always taught, but speaking them in a time against heretics, when it is called for. [Making them a 'sticky' for all intents and purposes]

Demonstrating the same truths written about by the APostles and the ECF's and the scriptures the ECF's used....etc

He is only infallible in that he is a leader of the Church and since the Church is infallible, teaching accurate truths since the Apostles...
'The gates of hell shall not prevail..'
Then we know he cannot do otherwise but teach the truth in the same capacity being led by the Spirit to do so.

Its about perception.
Always has been.

And that leads me to the question...
IS your Church infallible?

And if it is, can your leaders at any time teach anything contrary to the truth and change the teachings?

IE...the Holy Spirit will not allow corruption to overcome the truth.
But WA, it's not an issue of semantics. Catholics believe the Pope is the infallible leader of the entire Church that all under him must submit to, and Orthodox do not believe that. You can't say it's a matter of perception. A matter of perception is that the Orthodox think priests should have beards and Catholic priests tend to be clean shaven. Either the Pope is the universal and infallible leader or he's not. If he is, then for unity Orthodox must submit to his authority. If it's not, then he's what we see him as and is a first among equals who is NOT infallible.

[a_ntv]

But WA, it's not an issue of semantics. Catholics believe the Pope is the infallible leader of the entire Church that all under him must submit to, and Orthodox do not believe that. You can't say it's a matter of perception. A matter of perception is that the Orthodox think priests should have beards and Catholic priests tend to be clean shaven. Either the Pope is the universal and infallible leader or he's not. If he is, then for unity Orthodox must submit to his authority. If it's not, then he's what we see him as and is a first among equals who is NOT infallible.

You are right that the pope issue IS not a problem of semantic only but it is a theological issue.

But I dont think that the central point of the disagreement is the pope infallibility: actually the pope infallibilty is simply one form of the infallibility of the Church, and on this base there can be further discussion: the pope infallibily is a disagreement issue, but it is not the core one

The main theological issue is how to see the visible Church:
We see it one ordained and hierarchic body, like a ship where anyone has his own task and the helmsman (the pope) keeps it in the right direction.
Orthodox see the visible church as many separate ships each one governed by a patriarch, all cruising together
Protestants dont even see the necessity of ships, but for them the important is that anyone swim by eachself, all in the same direction

(please dont answer that the head is Christ: that is obvious, but we are speaking here only of the visible church: the one made of bishops, clergy and faithfulls on this earth)

[NewToLife]

I actually think the that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are farther apart even than many Orthodox realise. A good look at the two reveals that our differences flow not from simple cultural or lingustic differences but from a fully fledged and foundational difference in worldview.

In truth Catholicism embraced the rational worldview arising out of Plato and Aristotle and leading onto the enlightenment back in the centuries just prior to and after schism. Orthodoxy on the other hand rejected western rationalism decisively with it's decision to uphold the theology of St Gregory Palamas over Barlaam of Calabria's criticisms. In the East Mysticism triumphed, in the West there are only vestiges remaining as a contrast to the general rationalism. In the West rationalism triumphed whereas in the East reason has never been seen as more than a tool that can be occasionally useful but is ultimately inadequate for the purpose of approaching God ( or for that matter even questions about God ).

What we now have is a situation where our differences are as pronounced as our similarities. Those differences are not well summed up by a list of issues to be addressed, they run a lot deeper.

[a_ntv]

In truth Catholicism embraced the rational worldview arising out of Plato and Aristotle and leading onto the enlightenment back in the centuries just prior to and after schism. Orthodoxy on the other hand rejected western rationalism decisively with it's decision to uphold the theology of St Gregory Palamas over Barlaam of Calabria's criticisms. In the East Mysticism triumphed, in the West there are only vestiges remaining as a contrast to the general rationalism. In the West rationalism triumphed whereas in the East reason has never been seen as more than a tool that can be occasionally useful but is ultimately inadequate for the purpose of approaching God ( or for that matter even questions about God ).

What we now have is a situation where our differences are as pronounced as our similarities. Those differences are not well summed up by a list of issues to be addressed, they run a lot deeper.

Well, what you say is not correct.

The Catholic Church is not BINDED to any particar philosophical base.
The thomism is nice, but the CC deos not say it is mandatory.
If you read many modern catholic theologicians, like K. Rahner, you can see completly different philosophical bases to describe the same faith.
Also the theology of Palamas is considered a good philosophical/theological base for the CC, as well the many other bases.
Ad instance the III century St Ephrem, whose theology is before any greek philosopy influence, is officially considered Doctor of the Church by the CC: and for sure he was not thomistic.

If the Orthodox Church requires the Palamas philosophical/theological base as mandatory for any theology , ok I agree this is a core difference with the CC:
- for us not philosophical/theological base is mandatory: all are usefull (someone more, someone less) and possible: God is over any theological book.
- for the EO the Palamas philosophical/theological base looks like to be mandatory: that is a huge difference

PS:
I've read works of both Palamas and Casabilas: I assure you that they are EXTREMLY logic and RATIONAL in their theology, many time more logic and detailed that the thomism usually is: I've not at all seen in their work the mysticism againt the rationalism you say.

I think that a little more knowledge of both St Palamas and St Thomas works, read personally, would be very usefull in the EO-CC debate

[Simon_Templar]

I actually think the that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are farther apart even than many Orthodox realise. A good look at the two reveals that our differences flow not from simple cultural or lingustic differences but from a fully fledged and foundational difference in worldview.

In truth Catholicism embraced the rational worldview arising out of Plato and Aristotle and leading onto the enlightenment back in the centuries just prior to and after schism. Orthodoxy on the other hand rejected western rationalism decisively with it's decision to uphold the theology of St Gregory Palamas over Barlaam of Calabria's criticisms. In the East Mysticism triumphed, in the West there are only vestiges remaining as a contrast to the general rationalism. In the West rationalism triumphed whereas in the East reason has never been seen as more than a tool that can be occasionally useful but is ultimately inadequate for the purpose of approaching God ( or for that matter even questions about God ).

What we now have is a situation where our differences are as pronounced as our similarities. Those differences are not well summed up by a list of issues to be addressed, they run a lot deeper.
I would agree with aspects of this, but also say that the problem is not one of "the mysticism of the east is right! and the rationalism of the west is wrong!" nor is it "the rationalism of the west is right and the mysticism of the east is wrong!".

I think both are necessary aspects of Christian tradition. The fact is that christianity is and should be complete. It addresses all areas of the human being and our relationship to God as complete beings. We are made to need mystical interaction and we are made to need rational interaction, and we are made to need emotional interaction.

It is a tragedy that these aspects of the faith tend to get separated out and played against each other. Those with gifts in reasoning and logic need to remember that they are one limb of a body, just as those who are gifted in pursuing mysticism, and those who are especially open to emotional response need to remember that they are but limbs of the body and without ALL of them, there is no body.

The problems arise when these things are left separate and each one runs to its own excess because the others aren't around to keep it in check

[kamikat]

And if it is, can your leaders at any time teach anything contrary to the truth and change the teachings?

IE...the Holy Spirit will not allow corruption to overcome the truth.

Yes, our Church is infallible, however, yes the leaders can, at any time, teach something contrary, however they can not change the teachings. If a bishop is teaching contrary to the truth, he can be deposed. It is the Church that is infallible, it's leaders are only men.

[kamikat]

Well, what you say is not correct.

The Catholic Church is not BINDED to any particar philosophical base.


It is bound to a certain ethos that goes back much further than either St Gregory Palamas or Thomas Aquinas. The western church developed in the bosom of Rome. Emperial Roman society was much more concerned with obedience and conformity and group identity. In contrast, the Greek society, even under Roman rule, was much more concerned with the individual. This is why, from the VERY begining of the Church, there were differences. The Christian faith developed in the two areas differently because of the different societies.

[kamikat]

I think both are necessary aspects of Christian tradition. The fact is that christianity is and should be complete. It addresses all areas of the human being and our relationship to God as complete beings. We are made to need mystical interaction and we are made to need rational interaction, and we are made to need emotional interaction.


Says our good, Anglican friend ;) Those Anglicans know the best of both worlds!
I've heard it said that because of the isolation of the British Isles, British Christianity retained some of the mysticism for longer than the European churches. Don't know if it's true.

[a_ntv]

It is bound to a certain ethos that goes back much further than either St Gregory Palamas or Thomas Aquinas. The western church developed in the bosom of Rome. Emperial Roman society was much more concerned with obedience and conformity and group identity. In contrast, the Greek society, even under Roman rule, was much more concerned with the individual. This is why, from the VERY begining of the Church, there were differences. The Christian faith developed in the two areas differently because of the different societies.
Well, you are right, but it is the complete opposite situation.

From the III century, when the first differences arose and the christianity became the 'state' religion, we have:
- a West in almost a anarchy, both political, social and ethnic
- a East under the control of a Empire, the Bizantine empire, that united the people and the church (please remeber that "Vicar of Christ" was the title given by the ancient EO to the emperor)

The anciant Roman empire, with its conformity and group identity, survived (for 11 centuries) ONLY in the EO East.

The anarchy of the West ended only after the X century, with the arise of the German Empire, than anyway NEVER reached the unity, political, sociological and cultural, of the Bizantine Empire.

[Simon_Templar]

Well, you are right, but it is the complete opposite situation.

From the III century, when the first differences arose and the christianity became the 'state' religion, we have:
- a West in almost a anarchy, both political, social and ethnic
- a East under the control of a Empire, the Bizantine empire, that united the people and the church (please remeber that "Vicar of Christ" was the title given by the ancient EO to the emperor)

The anciant Roman empire, with its conformity and group identity, survived (for 11 centuries) ONLY in the EO East.

The anarchy of the West ended only after the X century, with the arise of the German Empire, than anyway NEVER reached the unity, political, sociological and cultural, of the Bizantine Empire.
This is true, however, I think it is because of the political chaos in the west that the western church took on a more political role.

In the east the social infrastructure of the empire remained intact. Thus the Church had a different relationship with the state.

In the west the social infrastructure of the roman empire collapsed. The result was that the only institution with the strength or the means to secure any kind of stability was the church. The church, thus, stepped in and in many cases basically picked up the skeleton left by the roman civil government and carried on where the civil government had left off.

The church became the home of education and scholarship, it became the only agency of public welfare and health, it became the only agency that had any power to try and maintain law on anything more than a small local level etc.

For example, one of the reasons that monasteries so commonly got involved with brewing various forms of alcohol was because this was a public service. Water supplies were not clean enough to be used safely and had to be cleansed by mixing with alcohol.
The church used the tithes it collected in grain etc, as a public storehouse many times so that the poor could be cared for and the general population could be aided in time of famine or crop failure.

It is true that the so called "dark ages" were not nearly as dark, nor the total collapse that they have often been presented as. However, much of the reason that it wasn't was because the western church stepped in and preserved as much of Roman civilization as could be preserved and in many ways the church became the civil infrastructure.


There are always exceptions to generalities and the western church certainly has its mystical tradition etc. However, I think it is true that there is a distinctly different ethos between the western and the eastern church. I don't think that this is necessarily bad. :)

[Simon_Templar]

Says our good, Anglican friend ;) Those Anglicans know the best of both worlds!
I've heard it said that because of the isolation of the British Isles, British Christianity retained some of the mysticism for longer than the European churches. Don't know if it's true.

the church I was raised in was non-denominational protestant. I was in that church until about 2-3 years ago. That group was primarily oriented to the emotional experience of God, often times to the exclusion of everything else.

I personally was more of a rationally oriented person.

Back then I had a vague idea that my faith wasn't complete, in that it didn't satisfy me, it didn't meet all the things I wanted out of it, and not in a fleshly, selfish, self gratifying sense, but in the sense that deep down, I could feel that there was a part of me that was not getting fed.

When I found myself in a more traditional understanding of the Faith, I began to see that Christianity really did meet me on every level, or rather it enabled me to meet God on every level of my being, its just that I had been ignorant of those aspects of the faith because the tradition that I was in focused on only one aspect to the exclusion of the others.

[WarriorAngel]

But WA, it's not an issue of semantics. Catholics believe the Pope is the infallible leader of the entire Church that all under him must submit to, and Orthodox do not believe that. You can't say it's a matter of perception. A matter of perception is that the Orthodox think priests should have beards and Catholic priests tend to be clean shaven. Either the Pope is the universal and infallible leader or he's not. If he is, then for unity Orthodox must submit to his authority. If it's not, then he's what we see him as and is a first among equals who is NOT infallible.

Perhaps we need to see how the entire body has a head.

WE have a visible Church on earth which has a head of the helm who holds the keys Christ handed over.
In Heaven we have Christ is the Head of His Church both places although as He left all the Apostles He also left a certain role for Peter.... as it says in Isaias 22, [where Jesus spoke verbatim about the keys] that when the master is gone, there is one man who guards the house of the master and has the keys, and what he shuts no one can open, and what he opens no one can shut.

Jesus repeated that about the keys. Keys being symbolic of the prophecy from Isaias to what Christ would establish..



I would agree with aspects of this, but also say that the problem is not one of "the mysticism of the east is right! and the rationalism of the west is wrong!" nor is it "the rationalism of the west is right and the mysticism of the east is wrong!".

Yes, and did not Paul tell us that all parts of the body have different roles?
Indeed, the whole body each part has a place and a duty.
The East may maintain the mysticism, whereas the Logic comes from the head.
Rome is the Head of the Church and the East makes up the heart and soul.

And all His Churches have a role...to which all should work in unity to keep Christ's Body as One Whole.



I think both are necessary aspects of Christian tradition. The fact is that christianity is and should be complete. It addresses all areas of the human being and our relationship to God as complete beings. We are made to need mystical interaction and we are made to need rational interaction, and we are made to need emotional interaction.

It is a tragedy that these aspects of the faith tend to get separated out and played against each other. Those with gifts in reasoning and logic need to remember that they are one limb of a body, just as those who are gifted in pursuing mysticism, and those who are especially open to emotional response need to remember that they are but limbs of the body and without ALL of them, there is no body.

The problems arise when these things are left separate and each one runs to its own excess because the others aren't around to keep it in check

WOW, I kind of agree, especially after what I just said ...I like to quote first...respond later. :)

Read as I go.

Yes, our Church is infallible, however, yes the leaders can, at any time, teach something contrary, however they can not change the teachings. If a bishop is teaching contrary to the truth, he can be deposed. It is the Church that is infallible, it's leaders are only men.


The Holy Spirit keeps them thru all means from being delivered as truth.

WHICH explains the error free Traditions the Spirit has kept for us.

IE... even the sourball Popes we have had...:sick: For whatever reason...never defined one single doctrine.

The Spirit kept them from doing so. And He is the One Who can keep errors from occurring by any means necessary.
WHICH is why BTW, we have the writings through time. :)

Explaining things after the Apostles... because no matter how many times generations pass .... ppl will continue to adjust the doctrines to their own liking... based on what they interpret scriptures to mean...
Even Peter said they did this to both scriptures and Paul's Epistles in their own time. What makes ppl think anyone has changed?

Hence the need to keep the Church faithful to the Apostles teachings.
You will not see anything new, just clarified, and explained.
IN all casesof heresies, the Church has always had to take a stand...
Because of they didnt ~ the truth would be lost and the weak would have stumbled.

Something to ponder.

EDIT to add I was referring to the Holy Spirit is the only One Who will keep us free from errors.

[EmperorConstantine]

Speaking as a former Roman Catholic, the differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics really are, greater than most Orthodox or Roman Catholics realize.

Besides the obvious Filioque.

It is a whole different train of thought and way of life. A whole different religion at some levels.

[WarriorAngel]

Speaking as a former Roman Catholic, the differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics really are, greater than most Orthodox or Roman Catholics realize.

Besides the obvious Filioque.

It is a whole different train of thought and way of life. A whole different religion at some levels.

I dunno...it was the Eastern Father who taught the filioque.

[EmperorConstantine]

I dunno...it was the Eastern Father who taught the filioque.
Was he Eastern Rite Catholic?

[WarriorAngel]

He was an earlier Eastern Church father. :)

[a_ntv]

Besides the obvious Filioque.

It is a whole different train of thought and way of life. A whole different religion at some levels.

Yes here you are right.
The main differences are not the faith, but in the "train of thought and way of life"

We call this spirituality, and for sure the Eastern spirituality is extremply different from the standard Western (US parish) one.

Well, anyway please consider that the situation is more complicated:
- in the East the EO teachs ONE spirituality (one train of thought )
- in the West, the Catholic Church allows many different spiritualities: so the spirituality that was teached you in your former catholic parish is not the only one spirituality allowed or teached.

Ad instance ,in the East the monks are monks.
in the West there are many different families of monks, with extremly different spiritualities: a franciscan is not at all a benedectine: their way to pray is different, their approach to God is different, their train of thought is different, their idea of sin / relative importance of virtues is different.
So also the Eastern spirituality, the one you are teached in the EO, is perfectly considerated catholic (and somewhere also teached): even if it is extremly different form the spirituality teached in the average US parish.

Dont think that beacuse the pope is one the Catholic church is uniform.
On the contrary, having the pope as communion point, allow us to have very different trains of thought and ways of life

Ad instance I've a friand which spirituality is the devotion to Jesus and Mary's heart (pietism), Latin Masses and strict abservance of fast, an other friend that is catholic charismatic, loving dancing and singing at Masses while spirit filled.
Both of them NEVER attend the parish because they complelty disagree (for opposite reasons) to the spirituality teached in the parish, and even if they willl never pray toghether, they are both perfectly catholic.

So:
- the EO is a faith, a theology model (Palamas) and one spirituality
- the CC is the same faith (almost), many theology models, and lots of different spirituality.

I agree with you: we are extremply different.

[NewToLife]

a_ntv, what you describe in your post to me describes disunity within Catholicism, not diversity;

Ad instance I've a friand which spirituality is the devotion to Jesus and Mary's heart (pietism), Latin Masses and strict abservance of fast, an other friend that is catholic charismatic, loving dancing and singing at Masses while spirit filled.
Both of them NEVER attend the parish because they complelty disagree (for opposite reasons) to the spirituality teached in the parish, and even if they willl never pray toghether, they are both perfectly catholic.


This kind of stuff to me does not speak of any real unity, I guess you could claim a theological unity but I think that if spirituality is divorced from theology in such a way it illustrates an extremely deep problem. In truth these people probably hold contradicting theologies not complementary ones.

Theology and Spirituality both boil down to the same thing in the end, prayer, we can indeed have diversity in our prayers but if we reach a point that we cannot pray with our brother because we disagree so strongly with them then we ought to take a step back and consider whether we actually are united to them at all.

You said previously that I was wrong about the deep differences, I take your post as the evidence that I was not wrong at all. My point is not that we are right and you are wrong of course, simply that we are not close to being as alike as you imagine, our differences run extremely deep and are rooted in our differing approaches to both spirituality and theology. For me unity is unity of belief in the one faith, unity in prayer and the Eucharist, for you it is apparently nothing of the sort as you can be united yet refuse to commune with each other, it seems from my perspective that fopr you unity is simply a matter of allegiance to the Pope, there is an enourmous gulf between our positions.

[a_ntv]

Theology and Spirituality both boil down to the same thing in the end, prayer, we can indeed have diversity in our prayers but if we reach a point that we cannot pray with our brother because we disagree so strongly with them then we ought to take a step back and consider whether we actually are united to them at all.

You said previously that I was wrong about the deep differences, I take your post as the evidence that I was not wrong at all. My point is not that we are right and you are wrong of course, simply that we are not close to being as alike as you imagine, our differences run extremely deep and are rooted in our differing approaches to both spirituality and theology. For me unity is unity of belief in the one faith, unity in prayer and the Eucharist, for you it is apparently nothing of the sort as you can be united yet refuse to commune with each other, it seems from my perspective that fopr you unity is simply a matter of allegiance to the Pope, there is an enourmous gulf between our positions.

Well, let's do not exagerate: I said that a catholic-charismatic and a catholic-traditionalist dont attend usually the the same Mass, not they they cannot partake the same Eucahristic: simply usally they dont: a catholic-charismatic usually prefer to have 1 hour travel to get a Mass he likes, and so also the catholic-traditionatist.
These are anyway limit exemples to point out what are differen spiritualities

Anyway for sure the Orthodox is a complete way: it includes 1) a faith, 2) a langaguage/philophy to express the theology, 3) a spirituality (the way of pray and in general the approach to God) 4) a liturgy

And for the Orthodoxy (the right way) it is impossible to split these aspects.

For the Catholic Church it is very different. Catholic means universal, and so different spiritualities are allowed (as differtent cultures and ethnicity).
a) fhe faith of course is always the same (under Rome control)
b) the langaguage/philophy to express the theology has a standard (like a common language, the thomism), but many other forms are actually used
c) the spiritualities are lots. Also here the standard parish offers a standard spirituality, but different spirituality are allowed and even encouraged
d) there are many different liturgies, and also when formally the liturgy is the same, it actually looks like very different for each spirituality.
And of course the glue is the bishop and the communion with Rome: a very strong glue, that allow very different spiritualities.

What you call disunity, for us it is richness. The important is to keep the same faith and the same obbedience to the hierarchy.

When the catholics say that we and the orthodox have few differences, we speak only about the faith. The Orthodox usually understand we say we are equal in all the aboe points a-b-c-d, and so they rightly disagree.

PS 1:
The different spiritualities in the Catholic Church exist form the very beginning. Ad instance before Luther there were many different spiritualities (think the hugedifferences beween franciscans and domenicas, even in the same kind of monacism.
The arising of lots of divisions in the early protestantism probably is due to the chance to have different spiritualities in the CC (of course the CC controls that any different spirituality does not touch the same faith: without this control the different spiritualities became different denomiations)

[WarriorAngel]

I agree a_ntv.

This is why so many cultural Churches feel safe under the basic constant faith of the Pope.

They keep their language, their spiritual alliance to their culture, and their 'differences' which does not mean a different faith.

[zhilan]

Perhaps we need to see how the entire body has a head.

WE have a visible Church on earth which has a head of the helm who holds the keys Christ handed over.
In Heaven we have Christ is the Head of His Church both places although as He left all the Apostles He also left a certain role for Peter.... as it says in Isaias 22, [where Jesus spoke verbatim about the keys] that when the master is gone, there is one man who guards the house of the master and has the keys, and what he shuts no one can open, and what he opens no one can shut.

Jesus repeated that about the keys. Keys being symbolic of the prophecy from Isaias to what Christ would establish..





Yes, and did not Paul tell us that all parts of the body have different roles?
Indeed, the whole body each part has a place and a duty.
The East may maintain the mysticism, whereas the Logic comes from the head.
Rome is the Head of the Church and the East makes up the heart and soul.

And all His Churches have a role...to which all should work in unity to keep Christ's Body as One Whole.





WOW, I kind of agree, especially after what I just said ...I like to quote first...respond later. :)

Read as I go.




The Holy Spirit keeps them thru all means from being delivered as truth.

WHICH explains the error free Traditions the Spirit has kept for us.

IE... even the sourball Popes we have had...:sick: For whatever reason...never defined one single doctrine.

The Spirit kept them from doing so. And He is the One Who can keep errors from occurring by any means necessary.
WHICH is why BTW, we have the writings through time. :)

Explaining things after the Apostles... because no matter how many times generations pass .... ppl will continue to adjust the doctrines to their own liking... based on what they interpret scriptures to mean...
Even Peter said they did this to both scriptures and Paul's Epistles in their own time. What makes ppl think anyone has changed?

Hence the need to keep the Church faithful to the Apostles teachings.
You will not see anything new, just clarified, and explained.
IN all casesof heresies, the Church has always had to take a stand...
Because of they didnt ~ the truth would be lost and the weak would have stumbled.

Something to ponder.

EDIT to add I was referring to the Holy Spirit is the only One Who will keep us free from errors.
WA, it seems to me like you have a hard time separating your own beliefs with history and with others beliefs. Just because you believe we have a visible head and that Popes are needed to keep the Church from error doesn't make it so. You claim that bad popes never fell into error. We would disagree obviously. In fact, we would point to the very defining of doctrines such as Infallibility as proof that Popes fell into error.

Obviously you disagree, but my point is just that you can't say "well it is like this" and make it so. Things obviously aren't so clear and black and white or we would all be the same religion.

[zhilan]

Can you provide the name of the Eastern Father who taught the Filioque? Not that it matters really anyway. This again speaks to the differences. To the Catholic viewpoint a pope who says birth contol maybe at times not be immoral destroy the faith. To the Orthodox 1,000 bishops and every single patriarch who deny the divinity of Christ does nothing to hurt the Orthodox faith. There have been times when the East has fallen into great heresy. CAtholics see this as proof they are right and we must need the Pope. We see it as proof that the Orthodox church is correct and is protected by the Holy Spirit. Why? Because we are UNITED IN FAITH AND TRUTH not under a man. Every bishop could fall and yet the Orthodox faith would persevere and remain steadfast and emerge from darkness to be stronger than ever. We have seen this time and time again. The ancient heresies, iconoclasm, Islam, Communism. Satan has sent EVERY possible attack on the Church and yet here we are today with the same faith the first Christians had. If that doesn't speak to Christ's church then I don't know what does.

[InnerPhyre]

Listen to this podcast. It will help you see the differences between us. It's quite short. Entitled "Three Cheers for Pope Benedict"

http://www.ancientfaithradio.com/podcasts/carlton (http://www.ancientfaithradio.com/podcasts/carlton)