Actually, smiling bandit, most of the “heresies” the Orthodox speak of come down to the filioque clause (not used in the Byzantine liturgy- I didn’t even know it existed until my schedule wouldn’t allow me to attend my own church and I got a bit confused during the Creed, “hey, where’d this ‘and the Son’ come from”) and a few minor differences in liturgical practice, most prominant being the practice in some (not all) Latin Rite churches of only giving the Body of Christ but not the Precious Blood.
Aside from that, any doctrinal differences, and they are very few, amount to what could be considered and “in house debate”. They are nothing the Catholic Church would consider dogma, or even to be in error. They are more differences in perception than in belief.
Aside from that, the only way I can tell Byzantine Catholics apart from Eastern Orthodox is to look at a calender. Oh, yeah, and the hateful attitude of the Orthodox toward Catholics.
Um, there’s also the small matter of the heretical claim that the Pope is the head of the Church and the intermediary through which the Holy Spirit guides the faithful.
It seems to me that the role of the Pope is very much a part of Catholic dogma, and I would find it very odd indeed if the Catholic hierarchy didn’t regard the refusal to recognize the Pope as head of the Church as a “mistake”.
In addition, the Orthodox hold that there can be no more decisions by the Church, guided by God, until ALL of the Church is represented in Council. As such, none of the Catholic rulings since the Great Schism are considered valid.
TVAA, interesting claim, considering that Rome is the only patriarchate that has never embraced heresy. Monophysitism, Arianism, iconoclasm have been embraced by Eastern patriarchates, including the patriarchs of Constantinople. So I would wonder how it is that the Orthodox can claim that the belief in Papal authority is heresy.
You know, you and DogFace are starting to sound like the Fundamentalist Protestant crowd, who claim that the Catholic Church is constantly inventing new doctrines, when in fact all that has occurred is that the Church simply formally defined a doctrine that has been part of Christian belief since Apostolic times.
Actually, I think the Orthodox Churches are more sensible than the Latin Church in that they simply refuse to take any formal doctrinal position on some matters, such as the Immaculate Conception, or the nature of what we Catholics like to call Purgatory. Orthodox belief has it that the Blessed Mother was sinless, and that the soul of a Christian believer must undergo some kind of cleansing process, which is unpleasant, before entering Heaven, but they leave it at that. They don’t go putting pen to paper and writing out the details of how and why the Theotokos is sinless, or the precise temperature of the flames of Purgatory (if in fact Purgatory has flames- personally I think the “flames” are metaphorical, representing the torments inflicted by the knowledge that one has sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God) telling the faithful, “You must believe this to be considered a good Orthodox Christian.”
Of course Rome has never fallen into heresy – Rome defines what the position of the Catholic Church is. By its own standards, it is correct, and it is correct because it meets its own standards.
The Roman Catholic position on this matter is tautological. The Orthodox, on the other hand, claim that the Roman Catholic Church has embraced heresy as doctrine.
There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Bishop of Rome held any special power or authority in the Church – the accounts of the Church Synods indicate that decisions were made by the council as a whole. The position had a special status in the same way that being Bishop of Jerusalem would have a special status, and only in that way.
It didn’t matter what the individual patriarchs believed. It didn’t matter who claimed what – and I severely doubt your claim that no jurisdiction ever fell into error, since the Iconoclasts actually won at one point. No person had the authority and divine guidance to pass judgment on Church.
Ooh, let’s not forget the whole filoque issue. That wasn’t part of the Creed as it was originally handed down – why did the West feel it necessary to amend the Creed?
So Mr. Gibson, how is your son Mel doing these days? Heard he was working on a movie…
My question is one I should be ashamed to ask, after 12 years of catholic school, but I’m a lapsed catholic so I haven’t tried to remember any of that stuff, so here I go: After reading through this thread so far I am moved to ask, what exactly is a “liturgy”?
Liturgy, as a general term, refers to the principle public celebration of worship in any religious group. In the context of discussions, here, the Divine Liturgy is the name for the celebration in which the Body and Blood of Jesus are shared in the Eucharist. In the Roman Catholic tradition, this acquired the shortened name, the Mass (from the Latin for gathering), although the Catholics have again begun using the word Liturgy to indicate the Mass since the Second Vatican Council. All the Eastern Churches (both Orthodox and those aligned with Rome) have always called that celebration the Divine Liturgy.
That’s what I’mthinking - modern Catholicism and East Orthodoxy appear to be two peas in a pod, although there are different focuses at times. Catholics have a greater interest in the Virgin Mary, for example. But a lot of it seems to be a matter of formality versus quiet consensus.
Is that really a common attitude? I mean, I think of East Orthodox as a very close brother, who should be embraced again in the spirit of Christ. It would really frighten me if they really hate me like that.
That is a false statement. “Orthodox” is NOT AT ALL IDENTICAL TO “Comes from Greece”. Orthodox refers to specific adherence to Orthodox doctrine. So far as the Orthodox Church is concerned (and the Orthodox Church’s fuller name is the “Orthodox Catholic Church”), Rome and her followers do not adhere to Orthodox doctrine.
You reduce Orthodoxy to a mere matter of social convention.
Transferrable Merit: heretical
Store of Merica: heretical
Created Grace: heretical
Direct Apprehension of God’s Essence: heretical
Pope of Roma as “Christ’s vicar”: heretical (it goes beyond a mere administrative matter)
Sexual transmission of Original Sin (which is the fundamental underpinnin of the “Immaculate Conception” doctrine: Heretical
Papal Infallability: heretical
Likewise, there are other differences in soteriology, the function of the Mysteries, and other areas.
As for the existence of the teaching that Orthodoxy is “just a rite”–look at the people who claim that the Byzantine Catholics are identical to Orthodoxy except for one tiny administrative detail. That boils down to claiming that Orthodoxy is merely a “rite” and would be utterly the same if it were under Rome.
What we have seen, here, are misunderstandings or errors of fact or knowledge demonstrated by individuals. You, however, with absolutely no evidence, persist in claiming that such errors in individuals are the result of some vast campaign of disinformation by “Rome” or “the West.”
There are clearly a number of people who are from Rome or “the West” who are aware of the doctrinal issues and are not making any claim that the situation is one of mere ritual difference. Unless you supply evidence of your “conspiracy” (or, better, withdraw your absurd accusation), I am forced to look upon you as someone who is more interested in polemical condemnation–even dishonest condemnation–than in setting the record straight.
I do not have any problem with you defending the Orthodox tradition from statements that are errors of fact. I do have a problem with you claiming, along with Jack Chick and Ian Paisley, that it is all a great campaign directed by Rome–particularly when that claim is made in direct contradiction of the evidence.
Thea Logica, can anyone besides the Priest server the Body and Blood to the congregation? If so, what are the qualifications that person must have? Being the right sex, being of a specific age, having other ecclesiastic offices (deacon etc) taking a class and then being blessed are some of the kinds of qualifications I can think of.
And a total question of ignorance, does the Byzantine Rite recognize the same sacraments that the Latin Rite does (Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, Eucharist (Communion), Reconciliation (sometimes called Confession), and The Anointing of the Sick (formally called Last Rites).
No, only the priest or deacon can distribute the Eucharist. The rest of us have to keep our mitss off of Jesus.
**
Yes. Also, if you have the right to receive the Eucharist in the Latin Rite (have had your first Communion, no unconfessed sins, etc) you may also receive in the Byzantine Rite. Be careful though- some Byzantine churches don’t like to communicate people who don’t attend their parish regularly. It’s understandable, they’re concerned with the possibility that non-Catholics may receive communion errantly or (and this does happen) that you might desecrate the Precious Body and Blood. There was an incident earlier this year where the Host was found in an ashtray outside of a local Latin Rite parish. Anyway, if you’re planning to visit a Byzantine parish, you might want to talk to the priest, possibly even make confession to him, before you try to receive the Eucharist in that parish.
OK, now…
Sigh. You don’t agree with a factual argument, so you dismiss it as stupid. I will never understand the meanness of spirit the Orthodox seem to have when entering into debate with Catholics.
**
I’ll start by referring you to Scripture. Matthew 16:15-19, in which, in reply to the question, “… who do you say that I am?” Peter said to, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God”. Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rrock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatefer you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thus St. Peter, who went on to become the first bishop of Rome, and by extension, his successors, was established to be the head of Christ’s Church on earth. Peter was the first Apostle Christ revealed Himself to after His resurrection. In John, chapter 21, Christ reaffirms Peter as the supreme shepherd (do you love me? … feed my sheep) The exchange is repeated three times. In Acts Chapter 10, it is Peter who God first sends to preach the Gospel to a Gentile.
In the second century A.D., Polycarp of Smyrna went to Rome to have the method for dating Easter settled, thus acknowledging the authority of the See of St. Peter. In the third century, St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote, “It is on him[Peter] that He [Jesus] builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts to feed his sheep. Although He gave power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, thus establishing by His authority the font and benchmark of the chirches’ oneness… If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the Faith? If he deserrts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, does he believe that he is in the same Church?” So, though the doctrine of papal primacy was not formally defined by the west until the sixteenth century, there is historical evidence that the authority of the See of Rome was recognized as least as far back as the second century.
**
Did you even read my post? I did not say that no jurisdiction ever fell into error. I said that Rome was the only jurisdiction that never fell into error.
**
The filioque clause doesn’t amount to one iota of doctrinal difference. The Eastern Catholic Churches don’t include it in the Creed. Why did the West feel the need to amend the Creed? Hell if I know, why don’t you ask them?
**
Arianism, monophysitism, iconoclasm were all embraced by Constantinople at one time or another. Other Eastern patriarchates, some of whom returned to orthodox belief and remained in communion with Rome through the nastiness of 1054, have also embraced such heresies as Montanism and Nestorianism. Which of these heresies was ever embraced by Rome?
The Orthodox argument seems to be “We don’t recognize Papal authority because it’s heresy, and it’s heresy because we don’t recognize it.”
You might want to try following tomndebb’s suggestion and present some evidence of Rome’s “heresies”. So far all I’ve seen is you and Dogface declaring certain beliefs to be heresy without any backing.
I could do the same.
Theosis: heresy
Baptism of icons: heresy
Theosis is a concept in Byzantine Christianity that the Latins might find a bit strange, but is shared by both Eastern Catholics and Greek Orthodox, but I don’t see them screaming “heresy” at us.
The same goes for the baptism of icons.
One guy gets excommunicated, and ten centuries later, you guys are still holding a grudge.
Get over it, already.
Thank you for having this thread. **
[/QUOTE]
Point two: your “factual argument” is logically flawed. By Orthodox standards, the Church of Rome has openly and eagerly embraced heresy. By Catholic standards, it hasn’t – because it defines what heresy is.
I fail to see how a pun made by Christ can be interpretated as meaning that Peter himself was given authority over the Church, and all his successors after him.
The Holy Spirit came upon the whole church, not a particular person.
Did you even read my reply? The Iconoclasts won. They were overturned within a generation, but there was still a time where they defined the teachings of the Church. Ergo, Rome is not the only jurisdiction that never fell into error, as there has never been a jurisdiction that never fell into error.
What? It changes the relationship between the aspects of the Trinity. How is that NOT a doctrinal difference?
Explain how it is that the term “Orthodox in communion with Rome” gets bandied about so very commonly among the Uniates to describe themselves. I’ve seen this on countless Uniate parish web sites in description of themselves. So, are you saying that this is nothing but all the Uniates as individuals managing to coincidentally do this? Are you saying that there is no official stamp on the claim?
Indeed, I’ve yet to run across a Uniate who doesn’t believe this until corrected as to what “Orthodox” means.
It amounts to a great deal of doctrinal difference. The Orthodox Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds EXCLUSIVELY from the Father. We utterly reject the doctrine of “double procession”, in which the Son is begotten by the Father but the Holy Spirit is a “joint product” of the Son and the Father. We likewise reject perversions on the order of saying that the Holy Spirit is the “love between the Son and the Father”. Even if you don’t say “and the Son” in Liturgy, the double procession of the Holy Spirit is a doctrine that you are required to believe. Check your Catholic Catechism.
Note that it insists upon double procession for the Holy Spirit. This is not Orthodox Trinity doctrine.
[/QUOTE]
Rome is not Orthodox. Those who accept Rome’s doctrines are not and cannot be Orthodox.
As for other matters, I always find it suspicious that it’s always the followers of Rome who keep saying that the Orthodox are doctrinally indistinguishable from Rome (with the implication that the Orthodox should thus enter under Roman control).
One is a request for Dogface to chill out. Yes, the Orthodox Church believes that it is the Church and that the Catholic Church is not, but that doesn’t mean you need to jump up and down screaming about it and generally coming across as fanatic.
Second is an explanation for why the Orthodox can be so defensive against the Catholics. The Catholic Church, to the Orthodox, is a blob-like organization that sincerely believes that there is no substantive difference between its faith and the faith of the Orthodox, and therefore feels justified in trying to swallow up as much of the Orthodox faithful as it can, since to them being under the Pope is the important thing and everything else is just details (cf. the formation of the Uniates). Of course Rome doesn’t believe that it is heretical, but the important thing is that from the Orthodox POV, they are, so the Orthodox quite naturally feel justified in vigorously resisting attempts to get them to unify.
Mm hmm, and when Jesus said, “take, eat, this is my body… drink of this all of you, this is my blood”… he was just speaking metaphorically. Apparently, you didn’t read my entire post, which includes the portion of the passage where Jesus says, “I give you the keys to the Kingdom”. How can you write this off as being a mere pun?
**
Not disagreeing with you there. Again, I ask, did you read my post? St. Polycarp stated that Christ gave power to all the Apostles, but established one chair…
**
The Iconoclasts won… in Constantinople, because they had the Emperor on their side. Rome never embraced Iconoclasm.
**
No it doesn’t. It’s merely a difference in perception of how the Trinity works. Remember, it was Christ, the Son who said, “I will send another comforter”, speaking of the Holy Spirit. And again, obviously, the Church doesn’t hold it as dogma, because the Eastern Rites don’t include it in the Creed.
Again, I say that what the Orthodox refer to as “heresies” are not actually doctrinal differences. They are differences in terminology, or in Eastern vs. Western theology and mindset. None of them are held as dogma (except the Immaculate Conception, and I’ve checked my Catholic Encyclopedia and a couple of online sources, and I can’t find any evidence that the Catholic Church teaches that Original Sin is sexually transmitted. It seems to be a notion that the Orthodox cut from whole cloth. Now if you want to argue that the Orthodox believe that we don’t inherit Original Sin from our first parents, we might have some serious doctrinal issues.)