|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I was prompted to ask about this from comments in the discussion about disestablishment of the Church of England, where it was explained that in Catholicism the vows of a couple, rather than what the priest does, make a marriage whereas in Orthodoxy the church makes the marriage and the couple do not make vows.
This reminded me that I have always thought there were a surprising number of differences between two traditions which have always tried to pass on what they received.
Do you agree, and if so why do you think there are a lot of differences ? Does it tell us anything about how realistic it is to pass on the same faith we received ?
[ 05. January 2015, 21:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
IIRC, in Catholicism the priesthood is a permanent charism, where buildings can be desanctified*; in Orthodoxy it is the opposite. A church building remains holy indefinitely, whereas priests can be defrocked.
*I forget the right word; sorry.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Erm.. well they've had a long time apart to grow up differently.. haven't they?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I think my overall impression is that Catholicism tends to try and pin down, define and categorise things a lot. In essence a lot of the teaching is extremely similar but the explanations are often a lot longer and more complicated when dealing with Western theology.
I am quick to add this is simply an impression and that despite being nominally one my understanding of academic Orthodox theology is very limited.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
IIRC, in Catholicism the priesthood is a permanent charism, where buildings can be desanctified*; in Orthodoxy it is the opposite. A church building remains holy indefinitely, whereas priests can be defrocked.
*I forget the right word; sorry.
Deconsecrated? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
That's interesting btw. I didn't know that.
I suppose it has something to do with the Orthodox ideal of creating heaven on earth through the liturgy (which would invariably involve the church building)....?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
IIRC, in Catholicism the priesthood is a permanent charism, where buildings can be desanctified*; in Orthodoxy it is the opposite. A church building remains holy indefinitely, whereas priests can be defrocked.
*I forget the right word; sorry.
This rule against deconsecration of churches might be true of the Russian Orthodox Church, but it seems not to be true of the Greek Orthodox Church. I first came across it after I learned from Josephine that a church "once holy is always holy". There was a Greek festival at the Greek Orthodox Church in Long Beach, CA, where I took advantage of a short informational talk on Orthodoxy and the L.B. church by the church's priest. He said this was their second church, and not on the original property. I was surprised and I asked him if the other church had been deconsecrated before they sold it, and he said, yes.
I took a moment to google some current events and I came across a controversy between historical architecture buffs and the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia. The buffs want to save the buildings and the Orthodox want to raze them in order to use the property for ministry to the elderly. The two churches had already been deconsecrated according to the article and used for child care and as a public hall.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
IIRC, in Catholicism the priesthood is a permanent charism, where buildings can be desanctified*; in Orthodoxy it is the opposite. A church building remains holy indefinitely, whereas priests can be defrocked.
*I forget the right word; sorry.
Even around my right Protty connection, we have Ordination but what is termed "defrocked " in the vulgar is properly "Placed on the Discontinued Service List (Involuntary)". There is no way to "undo" ordination in the UCCan. Ma Preacher certainly thinks ordination is indelible.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
There are also differences in Mariology, and what follows is how this Anglican understands it (I could be wrong).
The RCC believes Mary was conceived immaculately - i.e., without sin - so that she could be a pure vessel to carry and give birth to Christ. My understanding of the Orthodox view (which I think I got largely from the Ship) is that Mary was made perfect through observation of Torah.
The RCC also believes that Mary ascended bodily into heaven - I believe without dying, but I could have that wrong. The Orthodox believe she died, and after a little while, was resurrected. I've read an account where Christ returned to earth to come get her, basically.
Personally, if I'm understanding these views correctly, I side with the Orthodox on both those counts. I can do that as an Anglican. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(eta: I'm happy to explain my preferences, if anyone cares, whether here, on another thread, or in a PM. It's probably not relevant to this thread, since I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox - though I'm definitely catholic and orthodox.)
[ 14. June 2012, 05:18: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
The RCC also believes that Mary ascended bodily into heaven - I believe without dying, but I could have that wrong.
The dogma is simply that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the end of her natural life on earth, was assumed body and soul into heaven. The question of whether or not she died is left open.
The main difference between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is this: Protestants look at Catholics with a magnifying glass, and at the Eastern Orthodox with rose-colored glasses.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I'll add my thruppence worth from my limited experience of Orthodoxy - I first set foot in an Orthodox church around a year ago.
For us, the immaculate conception is an unnecessary belief because we don't believe in Original Sin in the same way the RCs do. As an Anglican (wait.. I haven't finished!) I always understood we were sinful by nature, but not born with original guilt - ie. that we already had sin which needed to be atoned for before we popped out of the womb.
In my 12 months of Orthodoxy, I've learned of no reason why I need to change my dogma here.
As for the Assumption - I don't know of much difference between the Orthodox and RC understanding, except that RCs will always be more detailed and precise, or legalistic. Essentially though, there is not much argument here.
Concerning the OP, I don't know anything at all about Orthodox weddings, but it will be interesting to find out more.. oh, except one thing - the common understanding of marriage being an icon of Christ and his bride - the Church.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This rule against deconsecration of churches might be true of the Russian Orthodox Church, but it seems not to be true of the Greek Orthodox Church. I first came across it after I learned from Josephine that a church "once holy is always holy". There was a Greek festival at the Greek Orthodox Church in Long Beach, CA, where I took advantage of a short informational talk on Orthodoxy and the L.B. church by the church's priest. He said this was their second church, and not on the original property. I was surprised and I asked him if the other church had been deconsecrated before they sold it, and he said, yes.
I took a moment to google some current events and I came across a controversy between historical architecture buffs and the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia. The buffs want to save the buildings and the Orthodox want to raze them in order to use the property for ministry to the elderly. The two churches had already been deconsecrated according to the article and used for child care and as a public hall.
This is interesting but unsurprising, Lyda*Rose.
Without meaning to resort to interjurisdictional bitching, there are many things found in Greek church practice that I would not see as being a standard of Orthodox practice. Those more knowledgeable than I tell me that this is more the case in the parishes abroad than in Greece itself, where most of these things would be greeted with surprise. There are other things too (the use of organs, elements of liturgics, the marriage of clergy who are canonically forbidden to marry). These are not core elements of the faith or anything that would cause serious division but there does seem to be something of a culture of it, (though the marriage thing has been known to cause problems for unsuspecting clergymen who have tried to move jurisdictions later).
I suppose there's one difference: the approach of the Catholic church to governance and disciplinary matters such as these makes for greater adherence to its norms than is often found in the Orthodox Church. Personally, I consider this a small price to pay...
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
There are also differences in Mariology, and what follows is how this Anglican understands it (I could be wrong).
The RCC believes Mary was conceived immaculately - i.e., without sin - so that she could be a pure vessel to carry and give birth to Christ. My understanding of the Orthodox view (which I think I got largely from the Ship) is that Mary was made perfect through observation of Torah.
The Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception is that the Mother of God was conceived without Original Sin. The difference with the Orthodox is not really about this point but rather about the nature of this Original Sin. You will sometimes see the expression Original Sin used by Orthodox writers but, as Mark Betts has rightly said, it is not the same teaching as the Catholic one, which is why English-speaking writers generally avoid the term, often using something like Ancestral Sin in its stead.
So the Orthodox do not accept the Immaculate Conception as a point of doctrine because, although we would accept that the Mother of God was conceived without Original Sin, this is not because she was singled out in any way, but rather we do not believe that this Original Sin exists. Therefore, in being conceived free from it, the Mother of God was just like the rest of us. We are all conceived without sin and in a state of innocence. We do, however, celebrate her Conception as a liturgical feast of great joy, for in it, we have a foretaste of the effects of Christ's Resurrection conquering the effects of the fall. The barrenness of Anna is overturned, and life comes forth.
As for the theosis of the Mother of God, this came as it does for anybody in Christ, through a life of seeking to live in accordance with God's will, striving for union with Him.
quote:
The RCC also believes that Mary ascended bodily into heaven - I believe without dying, but I could have that wrong. The Orthodox believe she died, and after a little while, was resurrected. I've read an account where Christ returned to earth to come get her, basically.
Personally, if I'm understanding these views correctly, I side with the Orthodox on both those counts. I can do that as an Anglican.
I think that, as Pancho has stated, there is very little difference here. At the same time, there is great difference. Essentially, both Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Mother of God died a natural death, and was taken, body and soul, into heaven. There is a tradition within Catholicism that the Mother of God did not die first. This is tied in with their teaching on the Immaculate Conception - in a nutshell, the reasoning is that the Immaculate Conception preserved the Mother of God from the effects of the fall so she could not have died. However, the papal decree Munificentissimus Deus (the whole document, and not just the explicit decree near the end that is most commonly quoted to support the "open question" idea) does not appear to my untrained eye to lend itself to that reading. It appears to me to make explicit reference to the Mother of God being taken from out of death and not just being spared it. I'll leave it to the Ship's Catholics to clarify exactly where this variant understanding fits into the scheme of things.
Some people like to draw some sort of distinction, saying that that Orthodox believe in the Dormition while the Catholics believe in the Assumption. This distinction is false. Both terms are readily used in both churches. Where we Orthodox would have problems would be with the variant understanding mentioned above, for without the death of the Mother of God prior to her being taken into heaven, the Assumption/Dormition has no meaning within the Christian economy of salvation. The whole point of the celebration of this event is that in the resurrection and assumption into heaven of the Mother of God, we have a pledge from God of the destiny that awaits all of us who seek to live in Christ, in our sharing in Christ's conquering of our death and drawing of our human nature into the heavenly state - into the life of the divine. The Resurrection and Assumption of the Mother of God are nothing more than the fruits of Christ's Resurrection and Ascension, in which we are all called to share. Remove death from the equation, and what do we have? Nothing more than a party trick on the Saviour's part.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As the original question was prompted by marriage, is there an Orthodox shipmate who can answer the following?
The individual agreement of both husband and wife, expressed out of their own mouths, is in English law an essential. This is not a modern innovation expressing post Enlightenment ideas about personal autonomy or female emancipation. It goes back to before the Reformation, and I think is a universal of Western Christendom, not a local English innovation.
So, if we think of an over-patriarchal context, to get your son or daughter to enter into a forced marriage, you have to stand behind them with a weapon to make sure they utter the right words.
Somewhere, I seem to have heard or read that to provide a form of marriage that would be valid in English law, the Orthodox Church had to add the standard exchange 'Do you .... I do' etc because in its raw Greek and Russian form, the couple simply appear before the priest and he then marries them. To marry people against their will, without checking beforehand that they both consented properly, might be priestly misconduct, but they would still be married.
So, in our over-patriarchal context, to get your son or daughter to enter into a forced marriage, all you had to do is to get a compliant priest to perform the marriage ceremony over them.
Is that correct, or is it rubbish?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As the original question was prompted by marriage, is there an Orthodox shipmate who can answer the following?
The individual agreement of both husband and wife, expressed out of their own mouths, is in English law an essential. This is not a modern innovation expressing post Enlightenment ideas about personal autonomy or female emancipation. It goes back to before the Reformation, and I think is a universal of Western Christendom, not a local English innovation.
So, if we think of an over-patriarchal context, to get your son or daughter to enter into a forced marriage, you have to stand behind them with a weapon to make sure they utter the right words.
Somewhere, I seem to have heard or read that to provide a form of marriage that would be valid in English law, the Orthodox Church had to add the standard exchange 'Do you .... I do' etc because in its raw Greek and Russian form, the couple simply appear before the priest and he then marries them. To marry people against their will, without checking beforehand that they both consented properly, might be priestly misconduct, but they would still be married.
So, in our over-patriarchal context, to get your son or daughter to enter into a forced marriage, all you had to do is to get a compliant priest to perform the marriage ceremony over them.
Is that correct, or is it rubbish?
It is correct but incomplete.
It is true that, in the United Kingdom, at least, in those cases where the legal wedding and the sacramental wedding are done together, a registrar must be present and specific words are added to satisfy the legal requirements.
However, this does not mean that the bald wedding service, without legal additions, does not include a declaration of consent and intention, for that is very much a part of the Church's requirements. Indeed, in most cases in my experience here in Britain, the couple usually goes to the register office first for the legal wedding and only later comes to church for the sacrament but the questions are still asked of them at the church wedding.
I know a Georgian/English couple who were married in Russia. The priest spoke no English and the bridegroom spoke no Russian, so the latter had been coached beforehand in how to respond to the questions. The first question asks the bridegroom whether he is entering into the marriage of his own free will. The second asks whether he has promised himself to another bride. Having got confused, the bridegroom answered 'yes' to the second question, resulting in considerable mirth.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
The Marriage service can be viewed here.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
(Silly tangent: I remember when I lived in the Czech Republic hearing of a Czech girl who married a Scot. At the ceremony she said her vows in Czech and he in English. It turned out, however, that the English words weren't simply a translation of the Czech, but the standard form of words used in Scotland, with the result that he ended up promising rather more than she did ...)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
On-topic:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I think my overall impression is that Catholicism tends to try and pin down, define and categorise things a lot. In essence a lot of the teaching is extremely similar but the explanations are often a lot longer and more complicated when dealing with Western theology.
My impression is similar, but I also have the impression that a lot of the Catholic verbiage consists of caveats and limitations on the more dogmatic pronouncements, whereas Orthodox statements of belief tend to be shorter but also less flexible.
It certainly seems to me that, for example, a Catholic could have a classically 'Orthodox' view of the atonement and not be considered in any way un-Catholic, but an Orthodox who took a distinctively 'penal' approach would be regarded as Unsound.
[ 14. June 2012, 10:00: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Would I be right in thinking that, in Orthodoxy, when the bride and groom express their intentions and answer questions, these are not considered vows in the same sense as in the western church?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Would I be right in thinking that, in Orthodoxy, when the bride and groom express their intentions and answer questions, these are not considered vows in the same sense as in the western church?
That is correct, Mark. The expressions of intention and freedom to marry in the marriage service of the Byzantine Rite are not vows.
However, within the Orthodox Church, this is simply a matter of difference between rites. For instance, in the Orthodox Western Rite, the ancient vows are to be found. Yet the classical Orthodox understanding of the sacraments being brought about at the hands and intercession of the priest remains.
The presence of the vows does not imply a Roman Xatholic understanding of those vows, just as the presence of the dominical words at the Eucharist does not imply a Latin doctrinal understanding of their significance.
[ 14. June 2012, 10:37: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I think, moonlit door, the question you ask is seriously in danger of being drowned in minutiae.
The key difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism would, I think, best be exemplified in two great and very contrasting theologians: St Gregory Palamas and St Thomas Aquinas.
Palamas was intent on defending the Orthodox tradition of hesychasm, which goes right back to the Fathers of the Early Church and is about the practical realisation of Christian fulfilment through a deceptively simple, but practically difficult, discipline of Liturgy; prayer and asceticism. Living theology?
Aquinas was more concerned with nutting out the essentials of belief in a rather dull, dry legalistic way.
But, I think it is better trying to get an
overall , living picture of both traditions in action rather than discussing abstruse theological matters. To this end, if you can obtain access to them, I would suggest viewing the two episodes of Ronald Eyre's 1978 BBC TV series entitled "Rome, Leeds and the Desert" and "The Romanian Solution" (the latter on Orthodoxy).
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
my undrestanding re: the Orthodox sacrament of marriage is that it is in effect a church BLESSING of a marriage (bond) which already exists between the couple.
The service is actually two services that are now almost always conducted back to back, but used to be separated, sometimes by years. the first is the betrothal, and is conducted in the "pritvor" (not inside the Church proper). this is the part of the ceremony when rings are exchanged. the actual marriage or "crowning" ceremony takes place in the middle of the church.
My aunt and uncle never legally married. they went through the betrothal ceremony to appease my grandmother, but never followed it up with the crowning.
there is also no concept of "till death do us part" because we don't' actually believe that death DOES part us. a marriage is forever, however the Church recognizes that we are fallible humans and it's hard to live as we should, therefore the Church does allow re-marriage (after death or divorce), but the service is different.
the marriage is not a legal contract, but a spiritual bond, a sort of "mini church" (or so I understand it).
Someone above stated that the Romans have more detailed rules that are more flexible, whereas the Orthodox have less elaborate rules that are more firm. I can understand that description, but I see it differently. I see it as the RCC pinning down their rules very specifically (and they are hard and fast, so rather than making exceptions, they work around the rules or change them). the Orthodox on the other hand are less specific in the rules, therefore there is a lot of wiggle room within the rule, thus giving less reason to adjust and change the rule itself. a deeply rooted tree that can bend in the wind, as opposed to a steel pole that is moved around from time to time.
and the Orthodox are more likely to apply the concept of economia.. meaning that sure, IDALLY x is the standard, and it's a high one, but it' also understood that we are human and may not be able to meet it. as I understand it, the RCC instead sets rules that it expect to be met.. and when those rules are for one reason or another not realistic, they are modified. take fasting for exaple. the fasting rules used to be the same, and very strict. people find it hard to meet those rules. the ORthodox just kept the rules and expect people to do the best they can, but don't get too worked up when someone can't follow them perfectly. the RCC isntead relaxed the rules (fewer days, less restrictive etc).
Another exmaple might be Church attendance. the Orthodox have no concept of a day of obligation.. we are just expected to attend as many services as we reasonably can.. for a monastic that would be many times a day, for someone else living in a non Orthodox country it may be once a year.
another difference is (and I don't know what word to use to describe this): a Catholic priest can and in fact should conduct services even when he is by himself. And Orthodox priest can NOT conduct certain services without at least one other person there.
Another difference I know exists, but am not the best person to describe, is the way we view Grace and I guess Salvation.. I don't just mean SA but this idea that it is the state of your soul at death that somehow determines your ultimate fate, rather than the direction your soul is pointing, so to speak. salvation to the Orthodox is definitely a process of Theosis. to the Catholics as I understand it it's also an ongoing process, but somehow more of one where you are moving in and out of salvation based on your deeds and your confession/repentance and participation in sacraments. I hope someone else can elaborate upon this, because I'm a bit fuzzy on the concept from the RCC side, but it's something that, while similar on the surface (what we DO matters as much as what we believe, vs. the "faith alone" approach), but we seem to approach it from different sides. a sort of more organic holistic view vs. a more discreet, individual action(on both our part and Gods) view. I always sort of imagined that the Catholic approach seemed to be of a scale, with bits of Grace balancing out sins. I know that's not accurate, but every description I have heard leads me to this image. the Orthodox see it more as growth, the way an organism grows, with neither sin nor Grace being something that comes in discreet units, but is more a condition we are in, or forces acting within us, or some similar image.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I think I should have worded my query a bit better. I am not wondering what the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, but why there are a lot of differences.
It seemed to me to be implicit in the idea of passing on the faith as received that we can hope that we have as much as possible the same faith those closer to the time of Jesus had.
If Catholicism and Orthodoxy are very similar, that is an indication to suggest they have been successful in preserving the faith without many changes. If, as it seems to me, they have quite a lot of differences, some changes must have been introduced on one side or both.
Wondering about how to explain this, I thought of the following possibilities
1) one or both in past times did not give the same value to tradition as they now think or say they did.
2) it is impossible however hard you try to preserve things over that period of time.
3) it would be impossible by human means to preserve things over that period but one of them had special help from God to do so.
Do you think one of those is true ? What other options are there that I haven't thought of ?
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The individual agreement of both husband and wife, expressed out of their own mouths, is in English law an essential. This is not a modern innovation expressing post Enlightenment ideas about personal autonomy or female emancipation. It goes back to before the Reformation, and I think is a universal of Western Christendom, not a local English innovation.
It might even go back to before Christianity came here. Its is at least possible, maybe even likely, that forced marriage was never legal in England. (Hard to tell for sure because aristocrats and royalty regularly disobeyed such laws, and we know far more aboiut their marriages than we do about ordinary peoplle's)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I think I should have worded my query a bit better. I am not wondering what the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, but why there are a lot of differences.
It seemed to me to be implicit in the idea of passing on the faith as received that we can hope that we have as much as possible the same faith those closer to the time of Jesus had.
If Catholicism and Orthodoxy are very similar, that is an indication to suggest they have been successful in preserving the faith without many changes. If, as it seems to me, they have quite a lot of differences, some changes must have been introduced on one side or both.
Wondering about how to explain this, I thought of the following possibilities
1) one or both in past times did not give the same value to tradition as they now think or say they did.
2) it is impossible however hard you try to preserve things over that period of time.
3) it would be impossible by human means to preserve things over that period but one of them had special help from God to do so.
Do you think one of those is true ? What other options are there that I haven't thought of ?
I believe that the primary, root difference is that the RCC believes that there is a mechanism for altering Dogma that resides within the ROMAN church, whereas the Orthodox believe that only a full ecumenical council can do that. Therefore while both may have changed over time in some ways, the RCC has "officially" changed over time, as they have a mechanism for doing so (i.e. councils within the RCC, and of course the Pope).
I think it's fair to say that the RCC has changed more, simply because change is part of their setup.
I think also that very early on there was a basic difference in approach to life.. the concept described earlier of "set specific rules" vs "a general rule with more flexibility" means that any time an issue came up that needed interpretation, the RCC just naturally tended to either modify an existing rule or create a new one, whereas the ORthodox generally looked at how it might be fit into the existing framework. over time this resulted in more change on the RCC side.
That of course shows my bias.. that the Orthodox have changed less than the RCC. I think that one can also compare both to the non Chalcedonian churches, who split away even earlier than the Great Schism. I believe that that comparison shows a great deal more similarity between those chruches and the EO, but again, that may just be my bias.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I think I should have worded my query a bit better. I am not wondering what the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are...
Three main differences - the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, and the Pontifex Maximus.
quote:
I
but why there are a lot of differences.
[...]
What other options are there that I haven't thought of ?
The split was on political grounds, as Italy and territories dependent on it gradually became detached from the Empire. Once that was underway the Popes began to be able to assert a degree of independence from the rest of the churches that other patroiarchs still under the sway of the Emperor couldn't get away with (except in Alexandria where they were isolated because thought heretical - which is why the Egyptians have their own Pope)
Docrtinal and liturgical differences emerged slowly and naturally once the split happened. Split first, doctine later. A sort of allopatric speciation ;-)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Palamas was intent on defending the Orthodox tradition of hesychasm, which goes right back to the Fathers of the Early Church and is about the practical realisation of Christian fulfilment through a deceptively simple, but practically difficult, discipline of Liturgy; prayer and asceticism. Living theology?
Palamas said his interpretation of hesychasm goes right back to the Fathers of the Early Church. It's not obvious to impartial scholarship that he wasn't reading through the eyes of faith.
quote:
Aquinas was more concerned with nutting out the essentials of belief in a rather dull, dry legalistic way.
Aquinas was writing an educational manual for training preachers. He's not legalistic. To some tastes he may be dry. But Aquinas would certainly deny that theology is a subject that can be studied without what we'd call spirituality; indeed, he wouldn't understand what we meant by spirituality - it would be all theology for him.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
...g the Orthodox tradition of hesychasm, which goes right back to the Fathers of the Early Church
No it doesn't, not unless you count the 5th century as "The Early Church", and even then its contentious.
Its easier to find the Holy Trinity, Substitutionary Atonement, and Predestiantion in the New Testament or the very earliest Chrstian writings than it is to find hesychasm. And you have to try to find them...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I think, Ken, you'd find Orthodox Tradition consists of a lot more than the Bible, as interpreted by you, or anyone else. Orthodox would trace the origins of hesychasm right back to the Desert Fathers and from there to the earliest days of the Church. Many traditions which developed over the centuries would be seen as being there in embryo as it were and being able to be developed within what is a continuing and living Tradition today.
Dafyd, I wonder if there can, indeed be such a thing as "impartial scholarship" on such matters. It would depend, I imagine, on what "impartial" stance a scholar takes. I would say a dull, uncommitted "value free" approach to matters of deep religious faith and life would be akin to a pathologist dissecting a living body.
Aquinas Scholastic approach, to me, would seem incredibly dull and legalistic. I'm not sure what you mean by "spirituality" and am not sure I would necessarily agree with it. I believe, towards the end of his life, Aquinas had what is described as a mystical experience and after that felt unable to write any more Theology.
Kallistos Ware once said the only worthwhile Theology was a Mystical Theology. By that he didn't mean a sort of fuzzy, vague, "feel good" emotionalism but something grounded. I would suggest the hesychast tradition would provide that. Orthodoxy places authentic, grounded, Christian mysticism at its core. The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally been very wary of mysticism and has placed it very much on the fringe.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
No it doesn't, not unless you count the 5th century as "The Early Church"....
The expression used was "the Fathers of the Early Church", which isn't a contentious expression in either Orthodoxy or Catholicism.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
BTW, Dafyd, I was not meaning to "bag" Aquinas, who was, as a Dominican, writing not just "for preachers" but also as a most distinguished member of the Order of Preachers and writing in a certain context, as was Palamas.
It does seem, irrespective of whatever concrete steps are being taken towards reunion of East and West (which is a contentious subject among many and one I'd rather not go into because it would sidetrack this thread) I think the Pope's recent encyclical, where he talks of the Church needing "to breathe with two lungs" and the existence, within the Catholic Church, of the Melkite Patriarchy, which is probably the truest to its ancient Orthodox traditions, whilst acknowledging the Pope, means that it is not a case of "either ...or".
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Even around my right Protty connection, we have Ordination but what is termed "defrocked " in the vulgar is properly "Placed on the Discontinued Service List (Involuntary)". There is no way to "undo" ordination in the UCCan. Ma Preacher certainly thinks ordination is indelible.
Well, your church is a grandchild of the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church, so it's not surprising.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I think I should have worded my query a bit better. I am not wondering what the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, but why there are a lot of differences.
It seemed to me to be implicit in the idea of passing on the faith as received that we can hope that we have as much as possible the same faith those closer to the time of Jesus had.
Can you honestly look at the RCC and the Orthodox church and say this is the same faith the first disciples had? Or the earliest church community in Acts?
I think the problem lies in your question.
All that gold and big churches and fancy robes happened in the time of Jesus? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
As to how two massive institutions can claim to retain the tradition of the apostles and yet be different - well. That's easy.
Cultural, political, geographical etc (i.e. natural human limitations and conditions) influence faith.
Same way two different people are raised in "the faith" and they end up understanding things in two different ways.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Can you honestly look at the RCC and the Orthodox church and say this is the same faith the first disciples had? Or the earliest church community in Acts?
I think the problem lies in your question.
All that gold and big churches and fancy robes happened in the time of Jesus?
It is only your posting record that persuades me that you're being serious.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Some time ago I uploaded an article on the similarities and differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism ... you can find it here ... Orthodoxy and Catholicism Compared.
On the matter of conservation within Tradition: Orthodoxy's position is that NO local church no matter how important historically is immune from falling away. (The term "local church" in Orthodoxy refers to the Church in all her fullness in one particular place or region under its bishop).
So, in respect of human freedom, God does not set up one particular local church "never to fail" in the same way that (contrary to Calvin) individuals can and do apostasise.
The Church is always visibly manifest in particular places and over time we can say that these ecclesiastical streams within Tradition both preserve it and are preserved by it but only through faithful persistence and repentant restoration (if having fallen away some return to God).
A key question concerns the Reformation.
Would the Orthodox* in similar circumstances have broken communion with Rome? Answer, yes.
Does that place us closer to Protestantism?
Answer, absolutely not! In repudiating Rome, the Reformers drifted even further away from Orthodoxy (although some made a circuitous manoeuvre over centuries and started to come back towards us a little).
Finally on a point made earlier by Michael about legalising a wedding in the Orthodox Church ... a State Registrar does NOT have to be present if someone in the parish (not necessarily the priest) is appointed by the Registrar as an "Authorised Person" who in English law will fulfil all the duties of a visiting Registrar EXCEPT giving formal public notification before the marriage. (This still has to be done at the Registry Office. Only CofE clergy are allowed to "call banns").
*assuming that Rome up to this same point had been Orthodox which is not actually the case here.
[ 15. June 2012, 14:29: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Finally on a point made earlier by Michael about legalising a wedding in the Orthodox Church ... a State Registrar does NOT have to be present if someone in the parish (not necessarily the priest) is appointed by the Registrar as an "Authorised Person" who in English law will fulfil all the duties of a visiting Registrar EXCEPT giving formal public notification before the marriage. (This still has to be done at the Registry Office. Only CofE clergy are allowed to "call banns").
Thank you Father Gregory. In my parish we have only had one church wedding which also served as a legal wedding, and we had a registrar present. I was not aware of the alternative.
In my earlier post, then, please read "registrar or other person authorised by law".
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Evensong
Can you honestly look at the RCC and the Orthodox church and say this is the same faith the first disciples had?
I don't know is the honest answer to that. What I said was that the intention of passing on the faith as received is that we should have the same faith as the early church. How well it has worked I don't know. That was the point of my question. If two sets of people try to preserve something but end up with different things, does that mean that the preserving has not worked ?
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
If the "different things" are mutually exclusive or incompatible then it depends first on how crucial those are in the overall scheme of things. If they are minor or inconsequential then inevitable "noise on the line" can settle the matter. If the "things" are more substantial then clearly, someone is not "plugged in" properly ... but that can happen to anyone, anywhere and at any time.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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. Orthodox are allowed to remarry after divorce (up to twice, i.e. 3 marriages, and always at the discretion of the bishop(s)); Roman Catholics, not at all.
Of course the latter have their "annulment" process which to those outside the RCC looks very much like a huge fudge. Especially when they square such circles as saying people who have been married 40 years and who have had kids and grandkids "weren't really married" and yet their kids are not thereby made bastards. But that's maybe a topic for another thread.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Actually, one of the points brought up by a number of bishops in the Melkite Church has been the question of religious divorce as with their sister church, the Patriarchate of Antioch.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
The late Latin tradition has rarely avoided moralising inflexible rectitude.
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Can you honestly look at the RCC and the Orthodox church and say this is the same faith the first disciples had? Or the earliest church community in Acts?
I think the problem lies in your question.
All that gold and big churches and fancy robes happened in the time of Jesus?
It is only your posting record that persuades me that you're being serious.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Care to explain this comment?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Finally on a point made earlier by Michael about legalising a wedding in the Orthodox Church ... a State Registrar does NOT have to be present if someone in the parish (not necessarily the priest) is appointed by the Registrar as an "Authorised Person" who in English law will fulfil all the duties of a visiting Registrar EXCEPT giving formal public notification before the marriage. (This still has to be done at the Registry Office. Only CofE clergy are allowed to "call banns").
Thank you Father Gregory. In my parish we have only had one church wedding which also served as a legal wedding, and we had a registrar present. I was not aware of the alternative.
In my earlier post, then, please read "registrar or other person authorised by law".
Indeed. The Authorised Person is a very important person in a Free Church (well any church that isn't Church of England really). But they are acting on behalf of the state registrar not the congregation. I believe their authority extends throughout the registration district in which they have been authorised. So no reason why you couldn't ring up the local methodist or baptist church and ask to borrow their person for the day. It's usually a layman - actually it is usually a lay woman in my experience.
Michael, I think it would be an admirable civic duty for you to volunteer for...
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
If two sets of people try to preserve something but end up with different things, does that mean that the preserving has not worked ?
Yeah. That's right.
Things change.
Things grow.
People are limited.
We are not capable of being "plugged in" to God (as Father Gregory says) and completely following God's will 100% of the time.
But the question remains: if we all followed God's will 100%, would we all think the same way and do the same things? And would that be a good thing?
Is that our purpose as creatures of God?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
If two sets of people try to preserve something but end up with different things, does that mean that the preserving has not worked ?
I think that the question needs to be unpacked. In particular, what do you mean by "different things"? It seems both the RCC and the OC have tried to preserve Christianity, and they both have. They don't have "different things" -- they both have Christianity.
There are a lot of things that have accrued along the way, and a lot of differences of opinion that we didn't "set out to preserve" -- so having such differences is not proof of a lack of preservation. Some of them are more important but for the most part they are secondary. The basic deposit of the faith, the creed, the mysteries/sacraments, have been preserved. (Well one side unilaterally fucked with the creed but I'm feeling charitable so I won't make a big deal about it.)
The whole question needs to be a bit more specific.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Can you honestly look at the RCC and the Orthodox church and say this is the same faith the first disciples had? Or the earliest church community in Acts?
I think the problem lies in your question.
All that gold and big churches and fancy robes happened in the time of Jesus?
It is only your posting record that persuades me that you're being serious.
Care to explain this comment?
The impression that I got some time ago (and the reason that I have for some time generally skipped over posts of yours, even when the subject is of interest to me), was of an unwavering reading of things through a particular protestant lens, which appeared impervious to anything presented to the contrary, no matter how obvious or widely accepted it was.
However, I realise that many of us do this to one degree or another, and that I am not guiltless here, and I had no place becoming frustrated and sniping. The particular point in this instance was one of the stock criticisms based on protestant assumptions that are customarily rolled out by some people of protestant mindset against Orthodox and it becomes wearying after a while, so I suppose I allowed that to compound things. I also realise that people change and I shouldn't be basing my response to your thoughts on how they were presented over a year ago. It is out of character and unfair, and I am sorry.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Finally on a point made earlier by Michael about legalising a wedding in the Orthodox Church ... a State Registrar does NOT have to be present if someone in the parish (not necessarily the priest) is appointed by the Registrar as an "Authorised Person" who in English law will fulfil all the duties of a visiting Registrar EXCEPT giving formal public notification before the marriage. (This still has to be done at the Registry Office. Only CofE clergy are allowed to "call banns").
Thank you Father Gregory. In my parish we have only had one church wedding which also served as a legal wedding, and we had a registrar present. I was not aware of the alternative.
In my earlier post, then, please read "registrar or other person authorised by law".
Indeed. The Authorised Person is a very important person in a Free Church (well any church that isn't Church of England really). But they are acting on behalf of the state registrar not the congregation. I believe their authority extends throughout the registration district in which they have been authorised. So no reason why you couldn't ring up the local methodist or baptist church and ask to borrow their person for the day. It's usually a layman - actually it is usually a lay woman in my experience.
Michael, I think it would be an admirable civic duty for you to volunteer for...
I was excited at the prospect when I first read this, FreeJack, but then I almost immediately saw a pitfall. Our people (I'm talking about our parish here) have a very clear idea of sacramental Holy Matrimony as distinct from the legal institution of civil marriage. This is reinforced by the fact that, with one exception, weddings at our parish have taken place after the legal wedding in the register office.
This is something that I welcome for a number of reasons because of both religious and social convictions. Firstly, I think that a proper Orthodox sacramental understanding may potentially be undermined if we begin to do things that could give the impression that sacramental marriage and civil marriage are the same thing. This separation of religious and civil marriage is a large part of why I can be quite vocal about my support for current government proposals pertaining to marriage without coming under too much fire. I also wonder whether the "two birds with one stone" approach, while practically convenient, may serve to conflate the practicalities of the two in people's minds. I can see this potentially involving, at least in people's minds, the church in any unpleasantness that may arise to do with legal issues or fees. (We don't charge for sacraments.)
No, I think I don't want to tamper with our status quo. It works well enough for us. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I would of course resign as an Authorised Person if I was forced to do anything.
Anyway, back to the question ... let's take it down another route ....assuming that the Church (unspecified) is preserved from error (let's say in the "long view") .... how might that work, practically speaking?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Can you honestly look at the RCC and the Orthodox church and say this is the same faith the first disciples had? Or the earliest church community in Acts?
I think the problem lies in your question.
All that gold and big churches and fancy robes happened in the time of Jesus?
It is only your posting record that persuades me that you're being serious.
Care to explain this comment?
The impression that I got some time ago (and the reason that I have for some time generally skipped over posts of yours, even when the subject is of interest to me), was of an unwavering reading of things through a particular protestant lens, which appeared impervious to anything presented to the contrary, no matter how obvious or widely accepted it was.
I completely understand. It's usually the same reason I ignore your posts.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
The particular point in this instance was one of the stock criticisms based on protestant assumptions that are customarily rolled out by some people of protestant mindset against Orthodox and it becomes wearying after a while, so I suppose I allowed that to compound things.
Hit a raw nerve hey?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I also realise that people change and I shouldn't be basing my response to your thoughts on how they were presented over a year ago. It is out of character and unfair, and I am sorry.
I wouldn't worry too much. I don't believe in change. Tradition is what's important. So I stick to my ways.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Rome makes me weep and rage as far as organisation, clarity and efficiency is concerned, but Constantinople is just ... positively Byzantine.
I can see Constantinople as I'm typing this and I often wonder how different things would be if the Ottomans had never sacked her? I also wonder how the Russian church would be if not for the Bolshevik revolution, or the Church of Antioch, Alexandria, etc?
Probably not as organized as Rome is now, but I'd think they'd have a few more of their ducks in a row.
That may be another difference between the two: without making a value judgement towards either one, Orthodoxy seems to get kicked in the 'nads a lot more often by invaders etc.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Probably a good idea then IngoB that I do not belong to Constantinople and neither am I Byzantine ... any more than you are Italian.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
