Why does it seem that Roman Catholics downplay the differences between their doctrines and those of Orthodoxy?you very well may be familiar with folks like me. however saying that we only have perceived differences is incorrect. our saints say the differences are more than perceived, and they know more about our faith than you do.
Why does it seem that Roman Catholics downplay the differences between their doctrines and those of Orthodoxy?
Why does it seem that Roman Catholics downplay the differences between their doctrines and those of Orthodoxy?
Because the great majority of the differences origins from different theological understanding of the role of the bishop of Rome.
This office has articulated doctrine that diverge from that of that orthodox church in many cases.
There are obvious differences however and there's no reason to downplay them, but some orthodox goes extreme and make it seem as if Catholics are equal to Muslims or pagans which is not coherent with the official line from Constantinople nor Moscow.
What you guys call the "Photian Schism" was the beginning of the end. It's definitely about the papacy, but really those papal claims were the final straw in a string of strained relations. Orthodoxy was held to Catholicism with dental floss for centuries. The forced celibacy on clergy, the unleavened hosts, the increase in legalism, the filioque, and a host of other problems were already smoldering.
St. John Damascene calls Islam a Christian heresy. It is an evil religion influenced by the demonic. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says point blank that Islam shares the one God with Catholicism and that they're first in line for salvation after Catholics pretty much. It elevates something we see as deeply defective and evil to something not that far off from the Truth. We don't believe Catholics are equal to Muslims, but Catholics are supposed to believe Muslims are pretty darn close.
Saying that the differences are perceived is simply an observation of fact. They are perceived differences whether there is more to them or not. I said it that way specifically because allows for us both to acknowledge that the differences are perceived (i.e. recognized, acknowledged, seen, known) without having to get into whether there is more to them or not; it allows for them to be more than perceived or not and thereby accommodates both of our views.
Yes, I am very familiar with folks like you, very very much so.
Christ has once and for all conquered death which makes any teaching which involves his sheep's being held away from paradise for any period of time due to sinfulness on earth and stains on a persons soul incompatible with the glory of Christ.
Christ won, we're no longer slaves of the flesh and the world has no power over us, the children of God. I wholeheartedly reject both tollhouses as well as purgatory.
It's simply undermining the victory of Christ.
Death has lost, Satan has no lower left if he ever got any...
Why does it seem that Roman Catholics downplay the differences between their doctrines and those of Orthodoxy?
BTW, Happy birthday Matt
This is so true. My experience with this is that most of the eastern orthodox who do this are catechumens who convert from protestantism and I think they bring that trait with them from protestantism. They focus on the differences to the point of exclusion and I think we have seen that even in this thread. In my church we don't do that and we don't have really any converts who are not Armenian so I never really see that mindset from anyone in my church, but I have seen it quite a bit from non-cradle orthodox. When my cousins got married in the Greek Orthodox Church (to Greeks, cradle orthodox) we were not treated any way differently but then I go to an orthodox church in Nebraska where nobody is a cradle orthodox and the priest was borderline rude to me once he realized I was not EO.There are obvious differences however and there's no reason to downplay them, but some orthodox goes extreme and make it seem as if Catholics are equal to Muslims or pagans which is not coherent with the official line from Constantinople nor Moscow.
I’m not sure your theory is true that ex Protestants underscore differences with Roman Catholics more than cradle Orthodox. I have spoken to a number cradle Orthodox monks on Mt. Athos who showed little affinity for even dialogue with Roman Catholics.This is so true. My experience with this is that most of the eastern orthodox who do this are catechumens who convert from protestantism and I think they bring that trait with them from protestantism. They focus on the differences to the point of exclusion and I think we have seen that even in this thread. In my church we don't do that and we don't have really any converts who are not Armenian so I never really see that mindset from anyone in my church, but I have seen it quite a bit from non-cradle orthodox. When my cousins got married in the Greek Orthodox Church (to Greeks, cradle orthodox) we were not treated any way differently but then I go to an orthodox church in Nebraska where nobody is a cradle orthodox and the priest was borderline rude to me once he realized I was not EO.
And I think that's why we see that kind of mindset more here in CF which mostly attracts westerners, so most EO here are converts who are of western origin, not cradle orthodox. I would bet that all the EO posting here with the exception of one or two are all converts. It's obvious to me based on my experience when someone is a convert.
Your post sums it up quite well, thank you for posting it!
As someone who has family and friends that are not EO, I can say that our parish is extremely welcoming to non-Eastern Orthodox visitors. It is rare (I can’t think an example) for someone to visit and not have a bunch of people from the parish stop and talk to them, welcome them, etc. Many of us are converts.This is so true. My experience with this is that most of the eastern orthodox who do this are catechumens who convert from protestantism and I think they bring that trait with them from protestantism. They focus on the differences to the point of exclusion and I think we have seen that even in this thread. In my church we don't do that and we don't have really any converts who are not Armenian so I never really see that mindset from anyone in my church, but I have seen it quite a bit from non-cradle orthodox. When my cousins got married in the Greek Orthodox Church (to Greeks, cradle orthodox) we were not treated any way differently but then I go to an orthodox church in Nebraska where nobody is a cradle orthodox and the priest was borderline rude to me once he realized I was not EO.
And I think that's why we see that kind of mindset more here in CF which mostly attracts westerners, so most EO here are converts who are of western origin, not cradle orthodox. I would bet that all the EO posting here with the exception of one or two are all converts. It's obvious to me based on my experience when someone is a convert.
Your post sums it up quite well, thank you for posting it!
Had you tried to receive Holy Communion?When my cousins got married in the Greek Orthodox Church (to Greeks, cradle orthodox) we were not treated any way differently but then I go to an orthodox church in Nebraska where nobody is a cradle orthodox and the priest was borderline rude to me once he realized I was not EO.
You are great a summarising lots of history. I suspect you could write a history of the Church in about 3 chapters. You should— it would be fascinating.It's simple J4, they have no answer for us. They broke away from real Catholicism---Orthodoxy. After having done so, they've marginalized the groups that broke off from them. They delegitimized the Anglican Church with stuff like the Nag's Head Fable and tried to claim they had no apostolic succession. They delegitimized the Lutherans and other groups because they lack holy orders or don't have this or don't have that. But with Orthodoxy there is a massive body of people who are LITERALLY more Catholic than the Pope who have a far superior liturgy, the venerable theology of leavened bread, powerful saints, awesome pure theology unspoiled by scholastics and modernists, undisputed apostolic succession, and everything they have only in spades and unspoiled. What do you do about that?
Catholics believe without the pope you can't maintain the Church and have cohesion, the majesty of the holy mysteries unmolested, and a pure theology or liturgy. They think everything outside of the papacy is defective and collapsed.....and then there is the fly in the ointment----Holy Orthodoxy.
How do you claim those defect arguments and explain Orthodoxy? The only way is to downplay things and have a quick drive-by approach to the East.
You are great a summarising lots of history. I suspect you could write a history of the Church in about 3 chapters. You should— it would be fascinating.
I still don’t get why, after all that innovation on the RC side, they would then turn around and suggest that we are all the same (which RCs often do). If Orthodox are more catholic than the Bishop of Rome, then I should think they would see us as a threat and want to justify why they have innovated.
At my cousins' churches I was invited to. At the Nebraska all-convert church I didn't try. I was also criticized by the priest for doing the sign of the cross "like a Catholic" and he said he wasn't familiar with my Church as an Orthodox or Catholic Church. I was stunned. He thought I was protestant because I said I was Armenian Apostolic and he thought I was pentecostal because of the 'Apostolic' part, he told me a couple of his parishioners were former Apostolics and I had to say "oh, yeah, that's a different kind of Apostolic".Had you tried to receive Holy Communion?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?