Catholics or Orthodox: How do we know which church is "better"? (No protestants, please)

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
except these aren't just single men of Rome, these are Roman synods that claim to maintain true teaching that contradict each other.
Again, hierarchy can misspeak, as well. There are bishops and cardinals out there who likely agree with terrible things. And can collectively agree on terrible things. But should they agree together of human will and assign to it divine approval, history and God will find them out.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Again, hierarchy can misspeak, as well. There are bishops and cardinals out there who likely agree with terrible things. And can collectively agree on terrible things. But should they agree together of human will and assign to it divine approval, history and God will find them out.

so which Popes were correct? the ones who said the Filioque is heresy, the ones who say the Filioque's exclusion is heresy, or the ones who say it's the same teaching?
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
again, what power if he can be excommunicated and overridden by his brother bishops?
A power and divine grace within the office. Again, the man within the office can be risen up against, even by fellow bishops. But what matters is what is the significance of that office, of that chair, and herein lies a massive gap between Catholic and Orthodox thinking. We see the significance of that office differently for different reasons.

But what does it mean to be in Union with Rome? To acknowledge and understand the Pope to be Head of the Church. What does that mean? That a Pope can not be opposed or risen up against, or declared a heretic? Or that there is a line of succession that matters? To say that this line does not matter is similar to thoughts voiced by a Protestants as to why they have no desire or interest in belonging to a Church with Apostolic succession. And surely there are awesome and holy Protestants who know more about following Christ than plenty of cradle Orthodox and Catholic Christians.

But again, does the See of Peter matter? Is Peter the Rock on which Christ built His Church? Does Peterine succession matter? These things we would not see eye to eye on. But they are valid questions.
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
so which Popes were correct? the ones who said the Filioque is heresy, the ones who say the Filioque's exclusion is heresy, or the ones who say it's the same teaching?
Good question. Sometimes we must look at history in perspective to see who was correct. Not every thing that is said with authority is correct. Pope John Paul II did much to examine this, and clarify points, and extend his hand to the East, though his words and hopes could be understood and regarded differently by those on each side.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
A power and divine grace within the office. Again, the man within the office can be risen up against, even by fellow bishops. But what matters is what is the significance of that office, of that chair, and herein lies a massive gap between Catholic and Orthodox thinking. We see the significance of that office differently for different reasons.

But what does it mean to be in Union with Rome? To acknowledge and understand the Pope to be Head of the Church. What does that mean? That a Pope can not be opposed or risen up against, or declared a heretic? Or that there is a line of succession that matters? To say that this line does not matter is similar to thoughts voiced by a Protestants as to why they have no desire or interest in belonging to a Church with Apostolic succession. And surely there are awesome and holy Protestants who know more about following Christ than plenty of cradle Orthodox and Catholic Christians.

But again, does the See of Peter matter? Is Peter the Rock on which Christ built His Church? Does Peterine succession matter? These things we would not see eye to eye on. But they are valid questions.

how does the chair matter if every man who has sat on it for centuries has been a heretic?

and yes, these matter, but you brought up history and it isn't on your side. you have simply shown that you have a different sense understanding, but not a correct one.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Good question. Sometimes we must look at history in perspective to see who was correct. Not every thing that is said with authority is correct. Pope John Paul II did much to examine this, and clarify points, and extend his hand to the East, though his words and hopes could be understood and regarded differently by those on each side.

so which Popes are correct?
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
how does the chair matter if every man who has sat on it for centuries has been a heretic?

and yes, these matter, but you brought up history and it isn't on your side. you have simply shown that you have a different sense understanding, but not a correct one.
That is your opinion, Sir.

The Chair matters if Peter is that Rock.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Oriental vs. Eastern Orthodoxy also seem to have different views on marriage. I understand that they are *not* the same thing, but unless I'm mistaken, Coptic Orthodoxy forbids divorce. Eastern Orthodoxy permits second and third marriages. Yet both are Apostolic. Multiple equally acceptable answers to a single question can be signs for some that everything being said can not be equally right.

If I may, as a member of the Church mentioned here, the Coptic Orthodox stance regarding divorce is not so much "opposing" the Eastern Orthodox stance (if we were that way, why would we allow Coptic-Greek intermarriage in the Patriarchal territory of Alexandria?), but recognizing the reality by which most divorces come: infidelity, in which one spouse is clearly at fault, or -- in an Egyptian specific context which I don't think has an analogue in much of the EO world -- the spiritual infidelity of conversion to another religion. (*ahem*)

Combine these factors with the aggressiveness of the Egyptian state in meddling in the Church's affairs in this matter (as it benefits the state-sponsored religion to have Copts turning to Islamic courts and Islam itself when the Church will not bless their infidelity; Islam, as I'm sure you know, is very lax on both of these issues, having divorce through talaq and fornication blessed through the example of Muhammad), and the reality of the situation really has more to do with the Church maintaining its autonomy and the inherent right She has to interpret Her own canons as is fit according to tradition and the needs of the believers than with anything that would judge whatever other churches are doing.

Heck, we are in communion with the Armenians, who are allowed to marry mainstream Trinitarian Christians like Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, while we can only marry Oriental Orthodox (with very few exceptions, as in the above example of Coptic-Greek intermarriage in Alexandria). I don't know what the Armenian Apostolic Church's canons say regarding divorce and remarriage, but it would not surprise me if they were more permissive than we are with regard to that too. If I had to guess, I would assume that surviving a genocide which slaughters 90% of your clergy and sends the majority of your people into a diaspora where they meet all kinds of different Christians probably has an effect on the kinds of allowances you're willing to make, but that's just a guess.

The point is: Please don't bring up the sad reality of the Chalcedonian/Oriental Orthodox schism as a point in favor of Catholicism. Catholics are also Chalcedonians (except for some renegade Maronites who know their history; haha), so I don't see how it can help.

And I'll state it outright here, as a member of one of the more conservative OO churches with regard to outsiders: In the modern day, at least since the time of the informal talks beginning in the 1960s, we have largely come to realize that we are much closer in an ontological sense to the Eastern Orthodox than to Roman Catholics. Their way of being is closer to ours, albeit not the same. So I find it distasteful to be mentioned like this at that level, too.

So arguments for Roman Catholicism should be made from Roman Catholicism, not Oriental Orthodoxy.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
That is your opinion, Sir.

The Chair matters if Peter is that Rock.

we agree that St Peter matters as do his successors. what you have not shown is that his successors reside in Rome if Rome is not the same faith as St Peter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,227.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yes and no. From an Orthodox point of view, this downplays the role of Peter. Yet from a Catholic point of view, this was simply the first Church council, whose head was Peter. Indeed, everyone had a voice, but a Catholic would respond that as it was Peter on whom the Church was built, Peter still had the seat of authority. Again, our perspectives on this would differ.
Who made the final judgment?

“13 When they finished, James has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles.

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

We have no problem if St Peter presided over the meeting (though that is not made clear in this passage). The question is: what did that authority mean in the apostolic church? The passage above is pretty clear to me.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ~Anastasia~
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,227.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
But what does it mean to be in Union with Rome? To acknowledge and understand the Pope to be Head of the Church.

This is a bug problem for us. Unity is so much more than recognizing a human head of the Church.

But again, does the See of Peter matter? Is Peter the Rock on which Christ built His Church? Does Peterine succession matter? These things we would not see eye to eye on. But they are valid questions.
Question to consider: when reading the passages from the Church Father in context, do they consider the rock to be Peter himself or his confession of faith? Remember the in context part. Does the Petrine head mean that he is more important or significant? I agree that we will not see eye to eye on this, and that it is a big obstacle to reunion.
 
Upvote 0

Unofficial Reverand Alex

Pray in silence...God speaks softly
Supporter
Dec 22, 2017
2,355
2,915
The Mystical Lands of Rural Indiana
Visit site
✟526,763.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
As some of you know, I've been working a while trying to understand the differences between Catholicism & Orthodoxy. What I'm seeing so far (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), is that the differences are 1) not much, and 2) they come from a fundamentally different understanding of development of doctrine: whether Jesus, the Apostles & Church Fathers developed the doctrine of Jewish law, and we should stay with their interpretation, or whether doctrine is something that continually develops, until Christ comes back to tell us otherwise.
More simplified: Orthodox believe in strictly following the doctine & tradition of the Early Church, Catholics believe in following the doctrine & tradition of the Early Church, with developments as deemed necessary.
Does this sound about right, for how the differences between these similar churches came into being?
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,227.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
As some of you know, I've been working a while trying to understand the differences between Catholicism & Orthodoxy. What I'm seeing so far (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), is that the differences are 1) not much, and 2) they come from a fundamentally different understanding of development of doctrine: whether Jesus, the Apostles & Church Fathers developed the doctrine of Jewish law, and we should stay with their interpretation, or whether doctrine is something that continually develops, until Christ comes back to tell us otherwise.
More simplified: Orthodox believe in strictly following the doctine & tradition of the Early Church, Catholics believe in following the doctrine & tradition of the Early Church, with developments as deemed necessary.
Does this sound about right, for how the differences between these similar churches came into being?
I’d give a qualified yes to the second (many are due to that, but not all), and no to the first. There are some pretty fundamental differences between the two...some of which I mentioned earlier. (Of course, if you are comparing non-denominational evangelical to Orthodoxy...that likely has more differences than the RCC and Orthodox). I also find that the RCC see less differences (or don’t consider many to be important differences) than those who are Orthodox see.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I am an outsider here, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I was a practicing Roman Catholic for years before converting to the Coptic Orthodox Church beginning in 2009 (baptized in 2012). So I think I have something of an idea regarding how the RCC and its communicants tend to see the division (at least regards how it was taught to me by leaders within the RCC when I was within it), and it is portrayed as you say: Minor differences, resulting from different ideas about the development of doctrine. The RCC will also mention ecclesiastical differences re: the place of the Roman Pontiff/universal jurisdiction, since it's kind of impossible to avoid, and from that maybe some differences re: the Filioque or the use of leavened vs. unleavened bread, etc.

Here's the thing, though: I have not seen anyone on the EO side who agrees that the differences are 'minor'. Maybe there are differences about how important issue X is (if it ought to be or is a church-dividing issue), but it seems that the EO view things much more holistically than that.

To that end, here is the standard reference I like to point people to when they ask about this topic. It is an address given by HAH Patriarch Bartholomew regarding the ontological differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. It is not just a matter of XYZ; it is a matter of how people live. The way of being Christian is very different if one is EO or RC. They're ontologically different.

A sample (since I'm not sure what the rules are regarding posting complete texts, but I'm pretty sure it's bad form to just copy and paste the entire thing):

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive.

The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.

No one ignores the fact that the model for all of us is the person of the Theanthropos (God-Man) Jesus Christ. But which model? No one ignores the fact that the incorporation in Him is achieved within His body, the Church. But whose church?

You can read the full address here.

It seems to me (as someone who is in communion with neither of you, and hence has no dog in this fight) that the differences that are noticed by Roman Catholics are true and real, regardless of whether or not RCs or the RCC sees them as substantial or not, but the underlying ontological difference that explains the divergence is more or less completely missed. The RCC doesn't delve into ontological issues when looking at the Great Schism (or any other schism, for that matter). Maybe some of its high-level theologians might, but I never heard that kind of talk until I started investigating Orthodoxy. It is sad if this is in fact the case, because it's very important to understand so as to start appreciating why difference which may seem minor from a bird's eye view are actually quite deep and important to the people you're talking to.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
As some of you know, I've been working a while trying to understand the differences between Catholicism & Orthodoxy. What I'm seeing so far (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), is that the differences are 1) not much, and 2) they come from a fundamentally different understanding of development of doctrine: whether Jesus, the Apostles & Church Fathers developed the doctrine of Jewish law, and we should stay with their interpretation, or whether doctrine is something that continually develops, until Christ comes back to tell us otherwise.
More simplified: Orthodox believe in strictly following the doctine & tradition of the Early Church, Catholics believe in following the doctrine & tradition of the Early Church, with developments as deemed necessary.
Does this sound about right, for how the differences between these similar churches came into being?

my only disagreement is that the issues are not, not much. we are vastly different. but yes, for us doctrine doesn't change, but the articulation of that doctrine can.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It may be historically understandable, but having two different answers on one matter is not the same thing as giving one answer.
Catholicism loses this argument big time when you look at the marriage sacrament in the Eastern rites and the Latin rite. They are completely different animals, and annulments in the Latin rite demonstrate a form of the heresy of Donatism.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
As some of you know, I've been working a while trying to understand the differences between Catholicism & Orthodoxy. What I'm seeing so far (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), is that the differences are 1) not much, and 2) they come from a fundamentally different understanding of development of doctrine: whether Jesus, the Apostles & Church Fathers developed the doctrine of Jewish law, and we should stay with their interpretation, or whether doctrine is something that continually develops, until Christ comes back to tell us otherwise.
More simplified: Orthodox believe in strictly following the doctine & tradition of the Early Church, Catholics believe in following the doctrine & tradition of the Early Church, with developments as deemed necessary.
Does this sound about right, for how the differences between these similar churches came into being?
I had written a lot in answer, but afterwards thought it not beneficial to provide a lengthy and complicated explanation. So I'll just state that Orthodoxy Theology is based in Theosis, while Roman theology is based in scholasticism. Theosis changes persons, by grace, into the God Who is pointed to with Theological definitions. Scholasticism is more of a philosophical science about God, and about God's dealings with the world. If one accepts this characterization to be true, then the reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this is that it is more the grace of God (Holy Spirit) directing Orthodox theological reasoning than human rationalization, and that the inverse is true about Roman theological reasoning. For an Orthodox Christian this is obvious and true. For staunch Roman Catholics, it is either denied or rejected on the grounds that it's an over simplification or an inaccurate generalization, or both.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
In some ways diverse, but in Her responses to inquiries on Truth, She should be singular. Are there heretical Catholic leaders? Definitely. Have there been terrible Popes? Yes. But as Christ was the visible Head while on a Earth, a visible head after His Ascension makes sense, too.
Every local Church, headed by its Bishop is the fullness of the Church. That is the view of the early Church and that is the Orthodox view.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: dzheremi
Upvote 0