Posted                          

quote:

---

That this is apparently a lesser reality for Orthodoxy is good news and a difference to note. I wonder what it would look like if the Orthodox were subject to a little scrutiny and examination. It may be that there is no child abuse in the Orthodox Church, for which I would be most full of praise to Almighty God and filled with admiration for the obvious sanctity of the Orthodox clergy, compared with those vile Westerners. It MAY be.......

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Could it not also be that he finds some of what Calvin says to be objectionable on theological grounds? Or is it all just "Westophobia"?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
He called Calvinism a mean name, waved off questions as a mystery not worth thinking about, and then refused to be held accountable for his statement.

So compelling.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
So it's therefore appropriate to lob vicious comments about Calvinism whenever he pleases? I would think anyone clodding about using phrases like "Orthdoxy's monstrous errors" would rightfully be called on it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
And you honestly see no difference between "monstrous edifice" and "error?"

Would you see it if someone was talking about Orthodoxy like that?

---

Posted                       

1. The supremecy of the Pope of Rome
2. A Change to the Nicene creed which was not agreed to by the rest of the patriarchates? (The Filioque)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
No, Mark, I don't think that they are. The East had put up with the growing/developing claims of the papacy for at least six centuries without seeing the need to break communion and they'd put up with the West's belief in the filioque for almost as long.

The more I read around this subject, the more I come to share the view expressed around here by, amongst others, ken, that the historical and cultural factors were decisive. The nearly one thousand years since the final break have seen the way in which East and West think about the faith become so distinct that it is difficult to see how the breach may ever be healed, particularly in the presence of the heritage of scholasticism in the West and in the absence of either a unified or unifying voice in the East or of much discernible good will there.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
IngoB has said that in his estimation, the thing that most seriously stands in the way of the reconciliation of the two churches is the question of remarriage.

---

Mind you, not necessarily because the doctrinal disagreement is irresolvable in principle. I just cannot imagine either side moving for the fear of the fallout, whether that is conscious or subconscious. Assume that tomorrow the RCC adopted something like the Orthodox position. They would get absolutely hammered for having caused so much grief to separated couples, and who would take any other RC hard line position seriously again? Assume that tomorrow the Orthodox adopted something like the RC position. There would be a massive outcry by those suddenly declared "invalidly remarried", by their supporters and simply by laity seeing a "right" being revoked. Finally, there seems to be no "middle ground" left between the RCs and the Orthodox. (The Orthodox are kind of the middle ground between the RCs and the Protestants on this one.) Hence I just cannot see how a unification on this matter could be handled without major unilateral damage.

Apart from this and more generally, I think the difference between the two Churches can be summed up in a very simple, practical manner. Try to find out what the RCC teaches on X. Then try to find out what Eastern Orthodoxy teaches on X. Pretty much all issues that one could mention on ecclesiology, doctrinal development, global vs. national approaches, etc. play into this one.

Most other differences are in my opinion overplayed, partly in order to maintain the "us vs. them" feelings, partly for the purpose of "advertising" to potential converts. I buy almost none of it. The filioque is a theological non-issue. The spiel about "original sin" gets old real fast. Governance turns out to be remarkably similar in practice, it is rather the chaos and mismanagement that differs (each side having their own flavour). The pope is a lot more powerful and does a lot more things in rhetoric than in reality. Roman Catholicism is not Scholasticism, and the Orthodox have been busy with theology beyond icon kissing. Etc.

There's an old joke along the lines of "Heaven is a place where the police are English; the chefs are Italian; the car mechanics are German; the lovers are French and it's all organized by the Swiss. Hell is a place where the police are German; the chefs are English; the car mechanics are French; the lovers are Swiss and it's all organized by the Italians." I think to a degree it applies here. I think we can see which part of the Church had Northern Europeans in it, and which part had the Middle Easterners in it. There is, I believe, quite some willingness on the RC side to absorb the strengths of what has been missing or lost in their development. I don't see as much willingness on the Orthodox side yet. But ... speaking as a German, I guess ... Rome makes me weep and rage as far as organisation, clarity and efficiency is concerned, but Constantinople is just ... positively Byzantine.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
In an indirect way, IngoB hit the nail on the head as to why the Vatican won't or can't change on practically any current issue.[

---

quote:

---

Paul VI ran with the minority report on the issue of contraception, because the Curia wouldn't wear any change from Pius XI's position.

---

quote:

---

Paul withstood Peter to his face, but no matter who Peter is, he will never be able to withstand the dead hand of the dead generations of the Curia.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
What is a "current issue" and what is it about those issues that makes you think the Catholic Church should alter her teaching in response to them?

---

Fortunately the Catholic Church does change its teaching in the light of a developing world though it tends to take a long time to make the change otherwise some of us would still be justifying slavery and a whole host of other issues. There has been a marked shift in the attitude of the Church to capital punishment very recently, for example.

Humanae Vitae is a dead letter anyway to the vast majority of Catholics if they have even heard of it and I would question it as "Catholic Teaching".

Papal encyclicals are not "infallible documents" and some of them have reached the level of just being historical curiosities!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

originally posted by Fuzzipeg

Fortunately the Catholic Church does change its teaching in the light of a developing world though it tends to take a long time to make the change otherwise some of us would still be justifying slavery and a whole host of other issues.

---