I just want to emphasize this once more: it’s ridiculous to make a statement or claim, then tell me that it’s my responsibility to go on a research mission for evidence to support your claims.
It isn’t. It’s my job to do research and provide evidence to support my own claims. I did that.
It’s your job to do research and provide the evidence to support your own claims.
**
You didn’t choose this wording carefully at all.
Who does “he” refer to? Without further specification, “he” can only refer to the author of the mistaken website.
In the second sentence, are you saying that the first and second “he” do not refer to the same person?
This is a semantic and grammatical nightmare.
** But the authority of Rome determines your views on spirituality, theology, sin, redemption, and Man’s relationship with God. The Byzantines cannot accept both the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox conceptions of the nature of the Theotokos and the nature of sin.
** You should have put the emphasis elsewhere. Particularly, on some theologians.
There are a number of debates within Orthodoxy as to the nature of the state commonly referred to as “Heaven”. Some suggest that it’s being in the presence of God – and that it’s actually the same as Hell. Only the nature of those in the states makes them different.
“Purgatory” is not a concept taught by the OC.
Additionally: you complain that I post only short articles and references, and then you derive conclusions about the nature of Orthodoxy from a passing reference in what appears to be a primarily RCC magazine?!
It most certainly is a difference in doctrine. “Purgatory” is not found in Orthodox doctrine; it is found in Roman Catholic doctrine.
** It’s not the letters, but what they represent.
If Byzantine Catholicism truly believes this, why is it in communion with a church that teachs an incompatible doctrine?
** You have it completely backwards: the Orthodox do not want to “play nice” because they view the difference as irreconcilable.
** It’s heretical because it does not appear in the tradition of the early Church, nor in the records of the Ecumenical Councils.
** And from the Orthodox perspective, the assertion of Papal Authority is heresy and schism.
Are you Catholic, or not? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that Byzantine Catholicism is virtually identical to Orthodoxy except for a few minor doctrinal matters and then say that the Orthodox’s main dispute with the RCC is disobedience and schism.
** “…upon this rock will I build my Church” is a joke. It’s also a statement about the primacy of faith. Is ‘you’ singular or plural when Christ says “I will give you the keys to the Kingdom”? When Christ said “I will send you the Comforter” (speaking of the Holy Spirit), was he talking about sending the Spirit to a person or to people?
It at least shows that God has no objection to puns.
** No, the reason the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome is that their doctrine is incompatible with Rome’s. Accepting Rome’s authority necessarily requires disregarding not only the idea that the Spirit was sent to the Church, not one man, but any number of other doctrines which Papal Authority has established.
No. If they were in communion with Rome, they would have slowly been forced to abandon their doctrines that were contrary to Rome’s teachings.
Not that that’s happening to the Byzantine Catholics. Right?
TVAA, um, this thread was started by an Eastern Catholic soliciting questions from Latin Catholics about the differences between Eastern and Western thought and practice. Therefore the majority of your post is ludicrous. You keep going over ground I’ve already covered, such as the historical evidence that the early church did, in fact, recognize the authority of Rome. Scroll a bit, you’ll find it, that is, if you’re actually interested in reading my posts any more than is necessary to find phrases and terminology to pick at. There are so many ways a hair can be split.
As to your last statement-
The fact that I am in a Byzantine parish that still holds to Byzantine theology, spirituality and world views proves this statement to be untrue.
One more thing-
There is no way the See of Rome could force the Eastern Rite Churches (including mine) who have been in communion with the See of St. Peter throughout history to abandon our doctrines are contrary to what Rome teaches.
We never had them to begin with.
If you want to understand more about the teachings of Byzantine Catholicism, (which I doubt, you seem to be more interested if picking fights than in understanding) I’m going to turn your own tactics against you and suggest you do some research on your own.
This is absolutely the last word I am going to say on the Orthodox/RCC debate.
[sigh]
And ignorance marches on…
I don’t believe I have a dog in this fight – both Orthodox and Catholic heirarchies regard us Anglicans as schismatic and heretical, though not so much so as, say, the Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God.
But it occurs to me that the issues at hand boil down to (A) a strong divergence in mindset – Orthodox (and Eastern Riters, it would seem) tend to allow much more room for the musteria, the sense of wonder at the works of God, while Catholicism, more “rational” (in the technical use) attempts to define these much more explicitly; (B) conflicts over practice, a few of which are based in disagreement on doctrine but most not; and © a very strong case of “what Catholics believe” vs. “what Orthodox believe” founded in non-autoritative teachings rather than in what the Magisterium on one hand tand Holy Tradition and the Councls on the other have taught authoritatively.
I find it very difficult to accept that Eastern Rite Catholics are permitted to hold and teach doctrines contrary to what Rome teaches authoritatively – but when TVAA decided to explain to Thea Logica, who seems to have a pretty clear grasp of what her church teaches and practices, that she couldn’t believe that because it’s against Rome, it was all I could do to keep myself from saying that what he needed to do was write to the Curia and complain, not tell her that she was wrong about what she and her church believed. Catholicism since Paul VI has been very accepting of a breadth in piety and theology within prescribed bounds, and nothing is clearer to me than that a lot of wiggle room is given by Rome to the Eastern Rites to believe and practice what has been handed down as tradition in the East since apostolic times and preserved by Orthodoxy.
I suspect nearly every Catholic here can identify at least one occasion when he was told “what the Church teaches” by a well-meaning nun, priest, or older Catholic, only to find out that that’s not the case at all. Extra ecclesiam nihil salus is a classic case which came up recently.
That’s part of the whole problem – for the Orthodox, there are no non-authoritative teachings.
Even if we eliminate all “non-authoritative” teachings of the RCC, the authoritative teachings are still incompatible with OC teachings.
Byzantine Catholicism is not identical to Orthodoxy excepting that they “recognize the authority of Rome”: accepting the Pope as head of the Church inevitably leads to a variety of doctrines that the Orthodox vehemently deny as heretical.
According to Bishop John Elya (of the Melkites, another “Byzantine” group in communion with Rome, their Canons state the following):
(http://www.melkite.org/Questions/R-9.htm)
The Uniates are 100% doctrinally subservient to Rome. They must accept the doctrine of the “filioque”, even if they do not say it during their Liturgies. They must accept the doctrine of the “immaculate conception” of the Virgin Mary. They must accept the doctrine of “purgatory”.
So, if I understand what you quoted from Mr. Walls correctly, purgatory is not so much the place I go to fully expedite the sin of cursing when someone cuts me off in traffic, as it is the place I learn to always make the choice not to curse when I am cut off. Is this the correct interpretation of the Byzantine Rite’s belief? Or is purgatory a place where both the sin of cursing at being cut off is expedited as well a perfect love of my fellow man is learned?
Thank you again for a fascinating thread
Reepicheep, I was actually up quite late searching the 'net on that very subject. I couldn’t find anything definitive, aside from a sqwaking at on a Byzantine message board by a Latin trying to persuade Byzantines that we must accept purgatory as taught by the Latins. Of course, since the Orthodox have (quite sensibly in my view) made no formal doctrinal statement on the subject. They quite obviously do not believe in the Latin conception of it, but I am finding some things that seem to suggest that souls in the Paradise section of Hades do undergo some kind of process whereby sanctification is completed, but is not purification or “purgation” in the Latin sense of the word. Which is a view that the Latins would not find heretical. A bit strange maybe…
Maybe you can enlighten us, since TVAA doesn’t seem to want to tell us anything about what the Orthodox believe in any kind of positive sense.
Dogface I did find this article about the Orthodox view of Papal primacy.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp
This is actually the first EO site I’ve found that seems to be capable of discussing the differences between Catholic and Orthodox belief without being mean-spirited about it.
They’re not being meanspirited. They’re simply willing to state that they regard their beliefs as correct and yours as wrong.
I found this part of the linked article especially clear regarding OC’s opinion on the Papacy:
Read that article carefully, Thea Logica. Can’t you see that the Orthodox view of the Pope’s nature and role within the Church is fundamentally incompatible with Rome’s?
It is one any Anglican could be quite comfortable with.
In fact, I think it could fit into Catholic theology quite well, if the Roman Pontiff, in an act of Christian humility, while preserving for himself his Catholic claim to teach authoritatively in behalf of the Church, defines formally in behalf of himself and his successors that they will only do so after consultation with an Ecumenical Council, which will be convened at frequent intervals. Granted that gaps of a hundred years or more were common when travel was limited to what sail or horse could do, there would be no reason not to convene them far more often when one can get up in Bombay, Lima, Khabarovsk, or Ottawa, and be in Rome by that time the next day.
And the first order of business, IMHO, would be to decide what core teachings of Christianity are to be held as true by the whole faith, and what are matters on which differences of opinion, style, or piety are acceptable within a unified body united in brotherly love.
“Though I speak with the tongues of Popes or Patriarchs, if I have not love, I am nothing.”
Christian doctrine is not a matter of intellectual assent to an internally coherent and consistent body of dogmatic pronouncements regarding metaphysical abstractions. It is a matter of striving to better understand the God in whose hands we have placed our lives, and His grace and will towards us.
Not incompatible. Just… Eastern. As an Easten Catholic, I, like Polycarp, am comfortable with it. Again, the core of your debate seems to be differences in Eastern and Western modes of thinking. Which, really, is what created the schism in the first place. I’m still waiting for you to start a thread in which you take up your argument with the Latin/Western church, instead of telling me that I have the same viewpoint as them and attacking me on that basis. If you have a quarrel with the Latins, take it up with the Latins. Leave the Byzantines out of it.
I wish you would actually read my posts before you reply to them. I did not say that this article was mean-spirited. I said that it was the first EO site that I’ve found that could discuss Catholic/Orthodox differences without being mean-spirited.
**
And will continue to do so as long as the ignorant use circular reasoning, misrepresentations of their opponent’s position, present arguments without evidence and demand their opponent provide evidence to the contrary (as you did when you asserted that Rome had embraced Iconoclasm), quibble over grammar and semantics rather than over actual belief, and flat out screaming as tactics to wear those who are trying to debate reasonably down until they quit fighting the ignorance out of sheer exhaustion.
I’m going to say it again (my face is getting blue from repeating this.
If you have a problem with the Latin Church, take it up with the Latins. Don’t ask a Byzantine to defend the Latin position. It just isn’t valid.
** No kidding. Do you think I’m defending the Orthodox? Their theology is every bit as ridiculous, illogical, unreasonable, and insane as the Roman Catholics.
Respectfully, no it isn’t. “Understanding” is an intellectual goal; neither the Western nor Eastern Churches have any interest in gaining understanding. Both seek faith, which is inherently opposed to understanding.
Any apposite response I could make to this comment would not be appropriate in Great Debates.
It’s truth, no matter how insulting or offensive you may find it.
Ultimately, theologians confronted with the logical paradoxes inherent in the existing religions respond with “you just have to believe”; the words may differ, but the meaning is the same.
Ya know, Teev, I’ve been wondering ever since you said in a prior post that you aren’t Orthodox…
Why are you even getting involved in this thread, claiming to present the Orthodox perspective, when you don’t even believe as they do?
Seems to me that you just came in with a chip on your shoulder looking for a fight. Doesn’t really matter what the fight is about.
You mean, why did I bother?
I have an impersonal interest in truth and accuracy. Naturally, once I saw your posts, I immediately felt I needed to become involved.
If I wanted to pick a fight, there are plenty available in the Pit.
** The Eastern and Western viewpoints are incompatible.
The Orthodox claim to be highly concerned with all aspects of faith. That’s (supposedly) the reason for their emphasis on incense, icons, music, and ritual gestures: they seek to involve all of the senses. Catholicism has many of these elements, but the emphasis is different. The RCC has a greater emphasis on logic and intellect, and a relative de-emphasis placed on intuition and emotion.
And those are merely the most superficial and obvious aspects of the differences. The theological division is profound.
** Again, I’m not impressed by your reading comprehension. I never said that article was meanspirited. Your implication was that the other sites you’d looked at were meanspirited – I contested that, claiming they weren’t.
:rolleyes:
Interesting statement, coming from someone who has, several times in this thread, misrepresented things I said, and continued to do so even after the innacuracies were pointed out.
**
Byzantine Catholics place the same emphasis on these things the Orthodox do.
**
And your point is…? Byzantine Catholics do not have the same emphasis on logic and intellect as the Latins do. Again, you’re attacking me based on the differences between Eastern and Western thought, and falsely asserting that Byzantine Catholics subscribe to the Western point of view because we are in communion with the See of Rome, despite having been corrected several time.
**
Great. Now you’re not even reading your own posts. You stated that I said the article was meanspirited, and after I corrected you, you’re claiming that I said *you * said the article was meanspirited.
Just once, can you try arguing your point without lying about what I’m saying?