Differences between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches

[twosid]

I'd like to ask a favor as I will follow this thread. If you are going to cast doubt on something someone has said would you please refute it clearly and not just cast doubt. It doesn't help but only confuses those of us further who are trying to learn about both beliefs. Thanks.

 

[MariaRegina]

Sexual molestation in the Catholic Church is a very serious issue, and while these things sadly also happen in the Orthodox Church, they do not happen with such alarming frequency as in the Catholic.

Maybe, maybe not.


Christ said that certain demons (lust especially) can only be cast out by prayer and fasting. With the reduction of fasting in the Latin Catholic Church, it is obvious that people who don't fast may be powerless to control the demons in their lives. Several Catholic periodicals recently stated that exorcists in Rome and elsewhere have a much heaver load of demonic possession now than previously. Has any hierarch in the Latin Catholic Church made the connection between the dramatic reduction in fasting and an increase in iniquity?

The important thing to remember is this: fasting has become optional in the Catholic Church over the last 130 years. Sadly, the Latin Catholics are only required to fast on TWO DAYS of the entire year:

Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

From what I read in an ancient book written shortly after Vatican I by Archbishop Gibbons, the Latin Catholic Bishops of Vatican I wanted to reduce the mandatory fasting days supposedly due to the increased hardships of modern times. In those days, Latin Catholics apparently still had the Orthodox fast and the Bishops were afraid that the Latin Catholics were converting to Protestantism to get away from the burden of the mandatory fast. So the Advent Fast, the Apostles Fast, and the Fast of the Theotokos were abolished and 4 ember days (Wednesday, Friday and Saturday) were established to sanctify the four seasons. Sometime later on, the fast on Wednesday (commemorating the betrayal of Judas) was abolished. This left only the Lenten Fast, the Friday fast and the new ember days. With Vatican II, the Lenten Fast was abolished along with the ember days as the Latins realized that the Saturday fast of the ember days was a source of irritation to the Byzantines. A Byzantine Priest told me that in the name of ecumenism, these ember days were abolished during Vatican II, because they were a modern invention and not an apostolic fast.

Hopefully, from what I have read in the CCC, Catholics will once again realize the need for a rule of prayer which includes regular times of prayer and fasting.

Hopefully, we Orthodox will not abandon fasting and abstinence but will be a good example to all of love and forgiveness. What good is fasting if we do it out of pride when the whole purpose of fasting is to repent.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us and save us.

 

[prodromos]

Why, in 950 years, hasn't it?

Here is an excerpt from a letter written by Archimadrite Justin Popovic to Bishop Jovan of Sabac in 1977.

On Summoning of the GREAT COUNCIL Of the Orthodox Church

Historical reality is perfectly clear: the holy Councils of the Holy Fathers, summoned by God, always, always had before them one, or at the most two or three questions set before them by the extreme gravity of great heresies and schisms that distorted the Orthodox Faith, tore asunder the Church and seriously placed in danger the salvation of human souls, the salvation of the
Orthodox people of God, and of the entire creation of God. Therefore, the ecumenical councils always had a Christological, soteriological, ecclesiological character, which means that their sole and central topic - their Good News - was always the God-Man Jesus Christ and our salvation in Him, our deification in Him. Yes, He - the Son of God, only-begotten and consubstantial, incarnate; He - the eternal Head of the Body of the Church for the salvation and deification of man; He - wholly in the Church by the grace of the Holy Spirit, by true faith in Him, by the Orthodox Faith.

This is the truly Orthodox, apostolic and patristic theme, the immortal theme of the Church of the God-Man, for all times, past, present and future. This alone can be the subject of any future possible ecumenical council of the Orthodox Church, and not some scholastic-protestant catalogue of topics having no essential relation to the spiritual life and experience of apostolic
Orthodoxy down the ages, since it is nothing more than a series of anemic, humanistic theorems. The eternal catholicity of the Orthodox Church and of all her ecumenical councils consists in the all-embracing Person of the God-Man, the Lord Christ. This is the central and universal reality, the theme of Orthodox Councils, this is the unique mystery and reality of the God-Man,
upon which the Orthodox Church of Christ is built and sustained with all ecumenical councils and all her historical reality. Upon this foundation we are to build, even today, in the sight of heaven and earth, and not upon the scholastic-protestant and humanistic topics employed by the ecclesiastical delegates or delegations of Constantinople or Moscow, who at this bitter and
critical moment of history present themselves as the "leaders and representatives" of the Orthodox Church in the world.

I guess there hasn't been a serious enough issue.

John.

 

[Moros]

Okay, thanks all. I'll do a final touch up.

 

[Kripost]

If I am not wrong, the disagreement about the fillioque is not purely a theological issue. The other reason for the rejection of fillioque is that the Creed that was defined in an ecumenical council cannot be changed, at least not without another ecumenical council.

 

[Oblio]

If I am not wrong, the disagreement about the fillioque is not purely a theological issue. The other reason for the rejection of fillioque is that the Creed that was defined in an ecumenical council cannot be changed, at least not without another ecumenical council.

Very true. It was not only what was changed, but how it was changed. Both were wrong.

 

[Moros]

I will add that as well.

 

[Rilian]

There's also this page which you could use as a reference. Most of it seems pretty good, but there's also some silly comments at the bottom like his one about beards. I also really dislike the use of the word "Papist".

 

[Sergius_Lucius]

Hello, Bruncvik. My two copecks:

Purgatory has been supported by a few Orthodox Church fathers in the form of "toll houses," most notoriously by Blessed Seraphim Rose of Platina.

"Toll houses" are generally condemned by Orthodoxy as a Gnostic belief. Purgatory is usually written off as a result of invalid council and minimal Biblical support.

Toll houses is not a form of Purgatory. Ideas behind these two doctrines are totally different. And teaching of toll houses was not condemned, as I know.

Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin.

I think this is too strong expression. We don't believe in inherited guilt of Adam's sin.

We believe in subordination within the Godhead.

Subordination is a wrong term. It means, if I'm not mistaken, that the Son is subjected to the Father, which is heresy.

Sexual molestation in the Catholic Church is a very serious issue, and while these things sadly also happen in the Orthodox Church, they do not happen with such alarming frequency as in the Catholic. What is even more alarming and shocking is that these priests are being protected at even the highest levels of Roman Catholic hierarchy. Both Orthodox and Catholics condemn fornication outside of marriage.

That is their problem and I think we shouldn't discuss this.

Catholic Cardinals wear "yarmulke" style skullcaps. Orthodox do not.

Does difference in caps mean anything?

 

[Rilian]

I think this is too strong expression. We don't believe in inherited guilt of Adam's sin.

That is my understanding as well. Original Sin in Orthodoxy is seen in different terms, but it's still the Original Sin tied to the Fall.

Subordination is a wrong term. It means, if I'm not mistaken, that the Son is subjected to the Father, which is heresy.

My understanding as well. I seem to remember Fr. Florovsky saying the essential unity of the church is mirrored in the unity and consubstantiality of the Trinity.

 

[Matthias]

There's so many differences, it's not funny.

 

[Moros]

I posted 4.0 but it was locked by a scarcely appearing moderator as "trolling."

 

[Photini]

In regards to infallibility:

It is not only statements proclaimed in ex cathedra that are irreformable, but all statements concerning faith and morals made by the Pope, even when not speaking ex cathedra. He does not need consent by the conscience of the Church or agreement from any other bishop. There is such a sharp contrast between clergy and laity that does not exist in Orthodoxy.
Also the criterion for unity of the Church as known by the Catholics is the Pope, whereas, in Orthodoxy, our unity is in the Image of the Most Holy Trinity.

Dogmatic Constitution in the Church

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.

23. This collegial union is apparent also m the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.(

 

[twosid]

In regards to infallibility:

It is not only statements proclaimed in ex cathedra that are irreformable, but all statements concerning faith and morals made by the Pope, even when not speaking ex cathedra. He does not need consent by the conscience of the Church or agreement from any other bishop. There is such a sharp contrast between clergy and laity that does not exist in Orthodoxy.
Also the criterion for unity of the Church as known by the Catholics is the Pope, whereas, in Orthodoxy, our unity is in the Image of the Most Holy Trinity.

Dogmatic Constitution in the Church

Does that mean that if the Pope said that the best thing to put on vanilla ice cream is 30wt motor oil that nobody could question it?

 

[Photini]

Does that mean that if the Pope said that the best thing to put on vanilla ice cream is 30wt motor oil that nobody could question it?

If he thought it was pertinent to faith or morals, then yes.

 

[Sergius_Lucius]

Does that mean that if the Pope said that the best thing to put on vanilla ice cream is 30wt motor oil that nobody could question it?

It doesn't look like a question of faith or morals.

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra

But don't Catholics acknowledge that at least one Pope taught heresy, although not ex cathedra: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm?

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned

 

[twosid]

If he thought it was pertinent to faith or morals, then yes.

Your being legalistic If the Pope says Quaker State instead of Hershey's then I'm making the move. Besides.....it will be less fattening.

 

[Photini]

Your being legalistic .

It's hard for this Western mind not to be.

 

[Oblio]

It's hard for this Western mind not to be.

[yoda voice]

Face East, yes this you must ...

[/voice]

 

[Photini]

(Rome was first among equals, now the primacy of honor of first among equals first goes to New Rome, or the Patriarchate of Constantinople.)

.

I was looking for something else, and happened upon this Canon from the Council of Trullo: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-133.htm#TopOfPage

• • Canon XXXVI.

  Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

  I just thought this was significant. In regards to the phrase "shall be second after it.." ...that phrase is understood as meaning second in time and not second in honour or priviledge. I would appreciate help in finding support for that point.