Orthodoxy versus Catholicism

Bella_purple

Anyone know about the differences?

Slav

There are too many of them for one post. Generally they can be categorised into:

• Dogmatic (things like Filioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, etc)
• Ecclesiological (Papacy, Magisterium, Church hierarchy, married and celibate priests, etc)
• Soteriological (Sanctifying Grace vs Theosis)
• Liturgical

Which one would you like to cover first?

lmaopml

Hi Bella Purple,

Here's a table that shows some of the different views within Christianity, and some that are almost the same too....

I hope it helps...

http://christianityinview.com/comparison.html

Manach

Offhand, I think the Orthodox(of the various types) are still rather annoyed with us (Catholics) for taking Constantinople during one of the Crusades. At least that was the impression given during a recent Papal visit.

Bella_purple

Thanks for all your replyes.

Slav, I know the differences, I opened this thread curious if Catholics know enough about the differences.
Manach, don't you think you're making a rather simplistic assumption?

From what I know, I think Orthodox are more into really living their dogma, whereas Catholics tend more to rationalise the religious concepts, forgetting to actually live the whole Christianity.

lmaopml

I hope this satisfied your curiosity Bella Purple...and gave you a good picture!

JimiTime

Bella_purple wrote: »

From what I know, I think Orthodox are more into really living their dogma, whereas Catholics tend more to rationalise the religious concepts, forgetting to actually live the whole Christianity.

I'd say people of ALL denominations and none are guilty of this. I think Jesus will be spitting out many of us come judgement day.

Catholic: 'But, but, I went to mass every week and got confession every month etc etc'

Jesus: Get away from me, I do not know you!

Protestant: 'But i told all the catholics I met that they had it wrong about works etc'

Jesus: Get away from me you hypocrite!

Christian of ANY denomination: I lived according to your ways. I Loved God and my neighbour, and hated sin. I looked after the needy in your name, and turned the other cheek when shamed on account of you.

Jesus: Come with me, the kingdom awaits.

Slav

Bella_purple wrote: »

Catholics tend more to rationalise the religious concepts, forgetting to actually live the whole Christianity.

TBH, I fail to see how the two are related...

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Christian of ANY denomination: I lived according to your ways. I Loved God and my neighbour, and hated sin. I looked after the needy in your name, and turned the other cheek when shamed on account of you.

What if you lived according to those ways but didn't find the bible particularly plausible or believed in another holy book?

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What if you lived according to those ways but didn't find the bible particularly plausible or believed in another holy book?

Its impossible to live according to Jesus' ways and at the same time reject God. Its an oxymoron.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Its impossible to live according to Jesus' ways and at the same time reject God. Its an oxymoron.

Are you saying that it's impossible to love my neighbour, hate sin, look after the needy, and turn the other cheek when shamed unless I believe in Jesus or is it that doing these things isn't good unless they're done in the name of Jesus? Can I not live according to his ways without explicitly doing it in his name?

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Are you saying that it's impossible to love my neighbour, hate sin, look after the needy, and turn the other cheek when shamed unless I believe in Jesus or is it that doing these things isn't good unless they're done in the name of Jesus? Can I not live according to his ways without explicitly doing it in his name?

You missed out (undoubtedly inadvertantly) part of what Jimi said, namely loving God. I don't see how you can you can love God while simultaneously rejecting His revelation of who He is.

PDN

Manach wrote: »

Offhand, I think the Orthodox(of the various types) are still rather annoyed with us (Catholics) for taking Constantinople during one of the Crusades. At least that was the impression given during a recent Papal visit.

"taking" is a wonderful euphemism for slaughtering the population, desecrating the churches and raping men and women alike.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

You missed out (undoubtedly inadvertantly) part of what Jimi said, namely loving God. I don't see how you can lou can't love God while simultaneously rejecting His revelation of who He is.

One post to the implication of dishonesty, I think we have a record! I did not inadvertently leave that part out, a non-christian obviously cannot fulfil the requirement of loving the christian god so I didn't feel the need to explictly mention it. I foolishly did not forsee dishonesty being implied on my part for not mentioning something that was blatently obvious to all involved.

[JimiTime only]
But Jimi listed several moral acts that are independent of loving god so I asked about those. Since even Christians who are saved have fallen far short of the standard set and in fact no one has ever lived absoutely according to Jesus' ways I felt it was a valid question. We all fall short of the standard in some way and we know that some are forgiven for these transgressions. Is it that not being a christian is the one unforgiveable sin, will all non-christians be damned regardless of how morally they behaved and will all christians be saved regardless of how immorally? Or is there a cut off point where a christian is considered too immoral to be saved or too immoral to be really a christian? And can someone be considered an "honorary christian" if they behave as morally as humanly possible but the particular way in which they fall short of the standard (which is impossible for any sinner to reach) is that they believed in the wrong religion or none? It just seems strange to me that one person who fell short of the standard by, say, stealing, can be saved while someone who fell short of the standard by being mistaken in their religious beliefs is damned......

edit: You may say that the christian thief must be repentant but the person who is mistaken in their religious beliefs does not know that they are mistaken and someone can't repent until they know that they've done something wrong. Is being mistaken a sin? Surely one must know that what one is doing is wrong and do it anyway for it to be considered a sin?

Someone who mistakenly thinks something is theirs and takes it is technically stealing it but can that act be considered a sin given the fact that they would return it if they were aware of their mistake? And can the act of not believing in Christianity be considered a sin given the fact that a non-believer would believe if they were aware of their mistake? Or is the position that non-christians all know that christianity is true but deny it to themselves? And if so to what end, assuming the person lives an otherwise moral life?

Btw my post is directed to Jimitime. Thanks
[/JimiTime only]

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One post to the implication of dishonesty, I think we have a record!

Sam, on an internet diuscussion board people are going to disagree with, and challenge, things that you post. If you can't handle that without imagining non-existent implications of dishonesty then you need to have a long hard think about why you are posting here.

You seem to suffer from some kind of paranoia in this area (in our last exchange I pointed out what I felt were logical inconsistencies and you made the same kind of baseless claim about being called dishonest.) Therefore, obeying the Scriptural injunction to be considerate of weaker brethren, I carefully noted that your ommission was probably inadvertant.

Now, I have made no implication or accusation of dishonesty - so please cut out the crap.

Btw my post is directed to Jimitime. Thanks

On a public forum anyone is free to answer your post. And, if you so choose, you are free to respond to or to ignore them.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Sam, on an internet diuscussion board people are going to disagree with, and challenge, things that you post. If you can't handle that without imagining non-existent implications of dishonesty then you need to have a long hard think about why you are posting here.

You seem to suffer from some kind of paranoia in this area (in our last exchange I pointed out what I felt were logical inconsistencies and you made the same kind of baseless claim about being called dishonest.) Therefore, obeying the Scriptural injunction to be considerate of weaker brethren, I carefully noted that your ommission was probably inadvertant.

Now, I have made no implication or accusation of dishonesty - so please cut out the crap.

I took the apparently superfluous addition of "undoubtedly inadvertently" to be a sarcastic implication that I deliberately left out that part of his post. If I have misinterpreted you and you actually thought that I inadvertently missed that part of his post then I wholeheartedly apologise.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

On a public forum anyone is free to answer your post. And, if you so choose, you are free to respond to or to ignore them.

He can use a Jimitime only prefix.

:pac:

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

He can use a Jimitime only prefix.

:pac:

Or request a Jimitime Forum!

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Or request a Jimitime Forum!

Haha

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

He can use a Jimitime only prefix.

:pac:

Edited to include [JimiTime only] and [/JimiTime only] :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Take it to PM's if you only want one person to reply.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

[JimiTime only]
But Jimi listed several moral acts that are independent of loving god so I asked about those.

Actually, I didn't. They all involved in Jesus' name and on account of him.

Since even Christians who are saved have fallen far short of the standard set and in fact no one has ever lived absoutely according to Jesus' ways I felt it was a valid question.

The implication in that little example, is that it was all done on account of Jesus. Like PDN said, 'Love God' was essential in it.

Is it that not being a christian is the one unforgiveable sin, will all non-christians be damned regardless of how morally they behaved

I would think not. Jesus said be hot or cold, for if you are luke warm he will 'spit you out'. This would indicate to me, that there is hope for the 'honest' non-believer. Hypocricy seems to be more detestable, and I would agree with that.

and will all christians be saved regardless of how immorally?

I doubt it.

Or is there a cut off point where a christian is considered too immoral to be saved or too immoral to be really a christian?

This is the crux really. We can argue about the semantics of 'being a Christian', but God knows the heart and he will know who his sheep are. Many professing Christians will be spit out I suspect.

And can someone be considered an "honorary christian" if they behave as morally as humanly possible but the particular way in which they fall short of the standard (which is impossible for any sinner to reach) is that they believed in the wrong religion or none? It just seems strange to me that one person who fell short of the standard by, say, stealing, can be saved while someone who fell short of the standard by being mistaken in their religious beliefs is damned......

This, let me be absolutley clear on, is of my own mind and opinion. I believe if such people live, who have Gods law written on their hearts, then God will stretch out his abundant mercy on that person. We must remember, that the morality you speak of, must be in line with Gods morality for mankind. I can only imagine such a person being ignorant of the facts of God, for if he truly had such a heart he would recognise his sovereign on hearing of him.

edit: You may say that the christian thief must be repentant but the person who is mistaken in their religious beliefs does not know that they are mistaken and someone can't repent until they know that they've done something wrong. Is being mistaken a sin? Surely one must know that what one is doing is wrong and do it anyway for it to be considered a sin?

Ignorance does not necessarily make it non-sinful, but it may bestow mercy. The question you ask, I have no authority to answer.

Someone who mistakenly thinks something is theirs and takes it is technically stealing it but can that act be considered a sin given the fact that they would return it if they were aware of their mistake?

In this case, it would not be sinful, for stealing from a God POV means that you wilfully take something not belonging to you. Its about intent. Lets say its an apple. Taking and eating an apple is not sinful. Taking an apple from a shop without paying for it is sinful. Now if your ignorance is that you didn't realise that taking something that doesn't belong to you was wrong, then you will have comitted a sin, but I would imagine mercy in light of such ignorance.

And can the act of not believing in Christianity

Non belief is an action after all now is it?;):)

be considered a sin given the fact that a non-believer would believe if they were aware of their mistake?

Again, I think it depends. Also, its not about belief. Belief is nothing of itself. Its taken as a given. Jesus said that its is 'the fool who says in his heart there is no God'. Remember, all the Pharisee's were believers of sorts. I.E. they believed in Gods existance, but they rejected him. Satan 'believes' etc. Its about trusting in God i.e. Faith. Knowing that if God says it, its as good as done. If I recall correctly, his name as revealed in the Old Testament, i.e. Yahweh, means 'I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be'. No being but God can have such a name, for no being can make such a statement.

Or is the position that non-christians all know that christianity is true but deny it to themselves?

Thats not my opinion anyway.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Or request a Jimitime Forum!

+1:D

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, I didn't. They all involved in Jesus' name and on account of him.

The implication in that little example, is that it was all done on account of Jesus. Like PDN said, 'Love God' was essential in it.

This is the crux really. We can argue about the semantics of 'being a Christian', but God knows the heart and he will know who his sheep are. Many professing Christians will be spit out I suspect.

JimiTime wrote: »

I would think not. Jesus said be hot or cold, for if you are luke warm he will 'spit you out'. This would indicate to me, that there is hope for the 'honest' non-believer. Hypocricy seems to be more detestable, and I would agree with that.
...
This, let me be absolutley clear on, is of my own mind and opinion. I believe if such people live, who have Gods law written on their hearts, then God will stretch out his abundant mercy on that person. We must remember, that the morality you speak of, must be in line with Gods morality for mankind. I can only imagine such a person being ignorant of the facts of God, for if he truly had such a heart he would recognise his sovereign on hearing of him.
...
Ignorance does not necessarily make it non-sinful, but it may bestow mercy. The question you ask, I have no authority to answer.

In this case, it would not be sinful, for stealing from a God POV means that you wilfully take something not belonging to you. Its about intent. Lets say its an apple. Taking and eating an apple is not sinful. Taking an apple from a shop without paying for it is sinful. Now if your ignorance is that you didn't realise that taking something that doesn't belong to you was wrong, then you will have comitted a sin, but I would imagine mercy in light of such ignorance.
...

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats not my opinion anyway.

I'm confused by your post. First you say that loving god is essential, then you say that there is hope for the honest non-believer.

You say your opinion is not that non-christians all know that christianity is true but deny it to themselves but you also say that someone with god's law written on their hearts would recognise their sovereign on hearing of him. How is this unless you think that such people don't actually exist? Is there no possibility in your mind that someone could read the bible and not be convinced of the truth of its supernatural claims while still being an honest and moral person, even that they could accept the morality while not being convinced of the supernatural elements, as with Christian atheism?

From what I can gather you seem to doubt the existence of people who aspire to behave as morally as they can while not believing in christianity. If this is the case, how do you explain the fact that non-christians around the world do not spend all of their time murdering, raping and pillaging and generally being bad people, or do you think they do?

edit: or am I misunderstanding the term "Gods law written on their hearts"?

JimiTime wrote: »

Non belief is an action after all now is it?;):)

Um, no

But really it's not, I was just making a point in as clear a way possible

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm confused by your post. First you say that loving god is essential, then you say that there is hope for the honest non-believer.

This is what happens when you forget where we started. The context of my initial post was in relation to the following point:

I think Orthodox are more into really living their dogma, whereas Catholics tend more to rationalise the religious concepts, forgetting to actually live the whole Christianity.

To which I responded that people of all denominations are guilty of this. So the post was in the context of those of belief not LIVING the message. Your question brought us in a different direction, so don't conflate the two.

You say your opinion is not that non-christians all know that christianity is true but deny it to themselves but you also say that someone with god's law written on their hearts would recognise their sovereign on hearing of him. How is this unless you think that such people don't actually exist?

Well thats the big IF that I bolded. We are talking rhetoricals. IF someone truly has Gods law written in their hearts, then I don't think they'd reject him on hearing about him.

Is there no possibility in your mind that someone could read the bible and not be convinced of the truth of its supernatural claims while still being an honest and moral person,

Honest and moral relative to who or what?

even that they could accept the morality while not being convinced of the supernatural elements, as with Christian atheism?

First of all, I don't believe that anyone exists with perfect righteousness, so no-one has 'earned' salvation for themselves. What I said, was that God 'may' bestow mercy on the honest non-believer. For example, someone who was abused by those in religious authority, and experiences the hypocricy of the religious etc and is stumbled away from Christ. Some would argue though, that God would intercede in their lives if they are to be saved. I would say that the thing about being 'hot, cold or luke warm' may indicate that such people still have a hope.

From what I can gather you seem to doubt the existence of people who aspire to behave as morally as they can while not believing in christianity.

I doubt the existance of people who are moral in the context of God, who don't believe in God.

If this is the case, how do you explain the fact that non-christians around the world do not spend all of their time murdering, raping and pillaging and generally being bad people, or do you think they do?

edit: or am I misunderstanding the term "Gods law written on their hearts"?

Yes, you misunderstand. Its about Love, and realising what is right and wrong. Not right and wrong in relation to you or I, or society or whatever, but specifically God. Below is what I qualified this with:

I can only imagine such a person being ignorant of the facts of God, for if he truly had such a heart he would recognise his sovereign on hearing of him.

Um, no

But really it's not, I was just making a point in as clear a way possible

As much as I don't go for the whole arguement about it being a 'non-belief' etc and the 'not playing chess' stuff etc. I was just taking the pee;)

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

This is what happens when you forget where we started. The context of my initial post was in relation to the following point:

I think Orthodox are more into really living their dogma, whereas Catholics tend more to rationalise the religious concepts, forgetting to actually live the whole Christianity.

To which I responded that people of all denominations are guilty of this. So the post was in the context of those of belief not LIVING the message. Your question brought us in a different direction, so don't conflate the two.



Well thats the big IF that I bolded. We are talking rhetoricals. IF someone truly has Gods law written in their hearts, then I don't think they'd reject him on hearing about him.


Honest and moral relative to who or what?


First of all, I don't believe that anyone exists with perfect righteousness, so no-one has 'earned' salvation for themselves. What I said, was that God 'may' bestow mercy on the honest non-believer. For example, someone who was abused by those in religious authority, and experiences the hypocricy of the religious etc and is stumbled away from Christ. Some would argue though, that God would intercede in their lives if they are to be saved. I would say that the thing about being 'hot, cold or luke warm' may indicate that such people still have a hope.


I doubt the existance of people who are moral in the context of God, who don't believe in God.


Yes, you misunderstand. Its about Love, and realising what is right and wrong. Not right and wrong in relation to you or I, or society or whatever, but specifically God. Below is what I qualified this with:

I can only imagine such a person being ignorant of the facts of God, for if he truly had such a heart he would recognise his sovereign on hearing of him.

What I can gather from that is that you believe that someone who is moral "in the context of god" and who realises what is right and wrong "in relation to god" can still be saved if they do not believe in the christian god but you doubt that such people exist. Is that correct?

I'm trying to understand what it means to be "moral in the context of god" and "right and wrong in relation to god". Is it the difference between saying "murder is wrong because it hurts another living being for no overriding good reason" and "murder is wrong because god says it's wrong"? So it's not enough to believe and behave morally, you have to do it because of love for god in order to be saved?

And if so, is it possible for someone to live a more moral life than any christian has ever lived and still be damned if they weren't doing it for the right reasons, if they refrained from hurting others because they cared about other living beings rather than because god's law said they shouldn't?

JimiTime wrote: »

As much as I don't go for the whole arguement about it being a 'non-belief' etc and the 'not playing chess' stuff etc. I was just taking the pee;)

Yeah I know that :pac:

Bella_purple

Slav wrote: »

TBH, I fail to see how the two are related...

I have read a book called "The nostalgy of Orthodoxy", by Placide Deseille. He was a catholic monk who converted into orthodoxy. So those weren't only my ideas, but the ideas of a practitioner.
I know that the western world is pretty much focused on gaining, weather then on having an inner life, a christian inner life.

That's a long debate here...

lmaopml

Bella-Purple, are you Orthodox? I only said the other day, I'd love to see more Orthodox post here...Cool!!

Welcome to the Christianity forum You will find people from all walks of Christianity posting here, and I would imagine that they do take their faith serious and try to live a Christian life...We may argue tooth and nail over some things, but we're all doing our best I'm sure...

Slav

Bella_purple wrote: »

I have read a book called "The nostalgy of Orthodoxy", by Placide Deseille. He was a catholic monk who converted into orthodoxy. So those weren't only my ideas, but the ideas of a practitioner.

That probably explains it!
All converts from the RCC I've ever seen are all the top critics of Roman Catholicism.

I know that the western world is pretty much focused on gaining, weather then on having an inner life, a christian inner life.

Do you think something has changed in the West during the past millennium? What about times when West was keeping Orthodoxy while East was torn apart by heresies?

Bella_purple

Slav, let's not be shallow and say that converting from something to something else automatically transforms you in an anti-something (the first something, I mean. you get my point ... I hope... :P ). I think if you dig deeper into what a converter says, maybe you find some interesting point. Not that you belive everything he says, but he can give you different perspective on things. I don't think that can do any harm...
Slav, I don't know what are you talking about the west being Orthodox and in the East being torn apart by heretics. From what I know, the Orthodox Church has only 2 divisions: wheares to keep all the holidays in the ancient rite or not. In the mean time, from R.C.C. many other churches have emerged: protestants, anglicans, lutherans etc. etc.

Anyway, I was speaking only about how Catholics versus Orthodox actually live their religion... I would be interested in the differences...

Slav, does your nick-name come from that fact that you are from slavic background? russian, maybe? just a speculation, hope u don't mind .


lmaopml 10x for your welcoming !

lmaopml

No problem Bella Purple, it would be lovely to see more Orthodox post on the forum....! There is very poor representation at the moment and it would be lovely to hear from you guys more often if possible..

I know there is a language barrier, and your 'english' is very good, it would be nice to hear from you guys more often..we have so much in common!

I can only barely speak conversational Geailge, French and Spanish....a small bit of Bantu and Sudanic..

Language shouldn't be a barrier! Please keep posting!

Slav

Bella_purple wrote: »

Slav, let's not be shallow and say that converting from something to something else automatically transforms you in an anti-something (the first something, I mean. you get my point ... I hope... :P ).

It's just an observed natural phenomena: converts from Catholicism are the top critics of RCC, more then anyone else. I don't know why.

Slav, I don't know what are you talking about the west being Orthodox and in the East being torn apart by heretics.

All major Christian heresies originate in East. Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, etc. There were time when the vast majority of Eastern bishops were heretics while West remained pretty much Orthodox. The things only changed since the Second Council of Nicaea when all christological issues had been finally resolved.

From what I know, the Orthodox Church has only 2 divisions: wheares to keep all the holidays in the ancient rite or not.

It's a fairly recent one and it's not a division really. There are Orthodox Churches in full communion while they use different calendars. If the calendar issue causes division that means that it's a mere schism and calendar is just an excuse for it.

In the mean time, from R.C.C. many other churches have emerged: protestants, anglicans, lutherans etc. etc.

It's not a division again. Lutherans and Anglicans are Protestants and they are not really divided. A Lutheran can go to an Anglican church and take Communion there and it's perfectly OK from both sides. The great diversity of Christian denominations that you probably referred to is due to divisions within Reformation movement and therefore they cannot be seen as direct RCC descendants. Also this diversity is not necessarily considered to be a bad thing from Protestant perspective.

lmaopml

I think everyone is a critic of how others practice in some way Slav..:) even amongst those who are of the same denomination or those who find a commonly held criticism..

We're all critics....but we have a lot in common too...

Bella_purple

About the differences, I was interested if the Catholics still rely on the concept of Mystery. In the Orthodox Church the emphasis is overwhelming.

lmaopml

Hi Bella_Purple,

Certainly there are very many things that are left up to 'mystery' in the Catholic faith. I think it's a fair point for you to say that the Catholic church does perhaps 'clarify' the nature of those mysteries a little more than our Orthodox friends. i.e. The real presence etc.

.....some of the doctrines that are similar between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths are certainly clarified or underscored more in the Catholic church perhaps than in the Orthodox church, where they may be 'inferred' but not 'clarified'...

I see where you get that idea...

...but certainly, there are very many things that are a mystery...

Slav

lmaopml wrote: »

.....some of the doctrines that are similar between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths are certainly clarified or underscored more in the Catholic church perhaps than in the Orthodox church, where they may be 'inferred' but not 'clarified'...

Yes, the approach to define something dogmatically is very different in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. In Orthodox Church a dogma can only appear as a reaction to a heresy within the Church. For the last 12 centuries it did not feel an urge to do so.

It's interesting that practically in every instance where a certain theological doctrine is more clarified in Catholicism the given explanation appears to be incompatible with Orthodox theology. I guess this is the reason why from the Catholic perspective differences between RCC and OC are seen to be faint (more like just different ways to express the same things) while from the Orthodox point of view they look crucial.

It's also funny that sometimes more clarified and underscored doctrines work the other way around and so allow greater variety of opinions. For example, Assumption of Mary in comparison with Dormition of the Theotokos. While Assumption is dogmatically defined in Catholicism it's acceptable to believe that Mary did not die a natural human death before being assumed same as it's acceptable to believe that she did. In Orthodoxy, while having no Mariology at all, it would be completely unorthodox to believe that she did not die same way as other humans.

Bella_purple

Slav, you are right, Orthodox focus on every detail. That would lead to think O. are stiff, but, if you have a closer look on the way R.C.C. rationalise everything, it would be a more rigid view upon things. For example why don't R.C.C. marry? It's such an unhealthy restraint, otherwise why would they turn into pedophilians?
I know in West the Mysteries are gone. Let's take the Marriage -it's just a formal ritual, an act, deprived of the holiness. There's the religion of concept, excessive rationalisation, purely formal and conceptual. I think there lies the difference between West and East. And also the gap.

lmaopml

I think the gap composes of many things - sadly! and broad generalisations are not the least of our worries...

However, in the interest of ecumenism I always like to give people a chance, because I have found there can be very good and holy people of many different faiths, and of course the opposit of this is true too...

Slav are you Orthodox? Actually, I think the Assumption is indeed very similar in both east and west. They too believe Our Lady was assumed body and soul into heaven and will not be awaiting final judement...

That's no small similarity...

The Catholic church in general would also see heresy as a reason to define and dogmatise...another similarity..lol...

Slav

Bella_purple wrote: »

Slav, you are right, Orthodox focus on every detail. That would lead to think O. are stiff, but, if you have a closer look on the way R.C.C. rationalise everything, it would be a more rigid view upon things. For example why don't R.C.C. marry? It's such an unhealthy restraint, otherwise why would they turn into pedophilians?
I know in West the Mysteries are gone. Let's take the Marriage -it's just a formal ritual, an act, deprived of the holiness. There's the religion of concept, excessive rationalisation, purely formal and conceptual. I think there lies the difference between West and East. And also the gap.

TBH it sounds like a sweeping generalisation. Perhaps not a very educated one - I guess you don't have too much exposure to the Western Christianity and spirituality?

Slav

lmaopml wrote: »

Slav are you Orthodox?

I am, yes.

Actually, I think the Assumption is indeed very similar in both east and west. They too believe Our Lady was assumed body and soul into heaven and will not be awaiting final judement...

Yes, Assumption/Dormition is probably the least controversial among the doctrinal differences. Indeed it's believed by both that she was assumed bodily into heaven but then you mentioned the final judgement. As it's perfectly logical for Catholics to believe that she won't face it, it is not so obvious for Orthodox due to a slightly different understanding of the final judgement - and so we have just found a tip of a huge iceberg. If we continue from here we'll end up discussing soteriological differences and stuff like that.

The Catholic church in general would also see heresy as a reason to define and dogmatise...another similarity..lol...

Of course, that's how it used to work during the first millennium of common history. But then the differences started to manifest themselves...

PDN

Bella_purple wrote: »

For example why don't R.C.C. marry? It's such an unhealthy restraint, otherwise why would they turn into pedophilians?

Actually the percentage of married people in the population who are paedophiles is about the same as the percentage among Catholic priests. The percentage of Orthodox priests who abuse children (and Protestant pastors, and Jewish rabbis, and Muslim imams) is also pretty much the same as among Catholic priests.

The fact is that there are a certain amount of very sick and perverted people in society at large who will try to compensate for their own feelings of powerlessness by abusing those who are weaker than themselves (usually children). These individuals will try to find positions that facilitate their activities by granting them 'power' and a veil of secrecy. Sadly they often have found this in religious organisations.

If you want to discuss this further then I suggest you go the Clerical Child Abuse megathread - but the evidence clearly demonstrates that celibacy (or homosexuality) are not significant factors in the rates of child abuse.

Fanny Cradock

Bella, you might be interested in this article from Newsweek. It is entitled Mean Men and it opens with the following: The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.

Bella_purple

I have a native language Christian-Orthodox forum which I read and there are debates related to differences about West and East. I wanted to see the persepctive of the West, that's why I asked here. And as Orthodox see it, besides the dogma differences (as you mentioned them before, Slav: filioque, papal supremacy, papal primacy, purgatory, the azyme, immaculate conception, the significance, celibate priests, chrismation) the core one is related to the way O. live the Christianity in a more deeper perspective (see Mount Athos), whereas R.C.C. tend to have a more vapid rationalization. So I intended to point out the core of the problem, not to make a "sweeping generalization".

I also thought you were an O. based on your nick-name, that's why I asked if it comes from slavic people who are O. (russians, bulgarians), but you didn't answear me. At least now I know ...

10x for the link, Fanny .


PDN assuming that most perverts wanna find a comfy shelter where they can do whatever they have in mind so they go in institutions like churches is like assuming suicidars feel more connected with extreme sports that's why they'll try to do bungee-jumping and the release the rope. I'm just saying that if you get suspicious to preists and think their only interest is to find kids to molest, then you won't trust them anymore and also it's a fake assumption. Rather there are malfunctioning brains everywhere, indeed, in all industries...

lmaopml

Slav wrote: »

I am, yes.

Yes, Assumption/Dormition is probably the least controversial among the doctrinal differences. Indeed it's believed by both that she was assumed bodily into heaven but then you mentioned the final judgement. As it's perfectly logical for Catholics to believe that she won't face it, it is not so obvious for Orthodox due to a slightly different understanding of the final judgement - and so we have just found a tip of a huge iceberg. If we continue from here we'll end up discussing soteriological differences and stuff like that.

Of course, that's how it used to work during the first millennium of common history. But then the differences started to manifest themselves...

Yep, unfortunately that seems to be the case alright Slav. Bty, I didn't realise you were Orthodox - Cool! To be honest, if I weren't RC, I would probably be Orthodox...and I mean that in the very best way...I'm a learner, but you know all the lingo..lol..I had to look up 'soteriological'

Actually, out of curiosity, how do normal Orthodox folk view the way to Salvation? Is it similar in anyway to RC? or totally at odds?

Slav

Bella_purple wrote: »

I have a native language Christian-Orthodox forum which I read and there are debates related to differences about West and East. I wanted to see the persepctive of the West, that's why I asked here. And as Orthodox see it, besides the dogma differences (as you mentioned them before, Slav: filioque, papal supremacy, papal primacy, purgatory, the azyme, immaculate conception, the significance, celibate priests, chrismation) the core one is related to the way O. live the Christianity in a more deeper perspective (see Mount Athos), whereas R.C.C. tend to have a more vapid rationalization. So I intended to point out the core of the problem, not to make a "sweeping generalization".

It's your claims like "I know in West the Mysteries are gone" and "Marriage -it's just a formal ritual, an act, deprived of the holiness" that led me to conclude that you were making sweeping generalisations because of lack of experience and/or knowledge about Western Christianity. You can find Catholic mysticism very different, you can even see it as wrong and harmful but you cannot deny its existence. If you want to learn more about it I highly recommend you to start with a classic work on Catholic mysticism The Imitation of Christ written by Thomas à Kempis, a 15th century German monk.

I also thought you were an O. based on your nick-name, that's why I asked if it comes from slavic people who are O.

Actually the vast majority of Slavic people in Ireland are Roman Catholics! :P

Slav

lmaopml wrote: »

Bty, I didn't realise you were Orthodox - Cool!

Really? Who did you think I was then?

Actually, out of curiosity, how do normal Orthodox folk view the way to Salvation? Is it similar in anyway to RC? or totally at odds?

It is different. In short, Orthodox reject the satisfaction view on atonement: a crime against infinitely holy God requires indefinite punishment according to God's justice; the only way to save mankind was for God himself to incarnate as a human and bore the punishment as a substitute. In Orthodoxy the reason for the Incarnation understood not as means to pay the debt that humans cannot pay themselves but as means to restore corrupted human nature by accepting it into Godhead. In Christ the human nature (which was initially created in His image) meets its prototype, cured and restored in its glory. As an analogy, we know of many doctors who voluntarily self-infected themselves while working on a decease in order to fully describe clinical picture and suggest or test a remedy. We can say that doctors sacrifice themselves to patients and to science but obviously there is no debt to pay here in juridical terms.

In fact this is the root of most (if not all) our differences. It affects pretty much everything and even things that might look almost identical (like understanding of the Eucharist) are in fact very different in essence. I also believe that this very issue was the main reason for the 1054 split although it was not clearly articulated back then and so at a first glance might look like a silly dispute over a ritualistic question of absolutely no significance (leavened vs unleavened Eucharistic bread).

Bella_purple

Slav, I didn't know the situation in Ireland about Slavic people. I had another reference system -the situation with the majority of Slavic people, mostly Russians.

See, this is what I've searched with this thread: to discuss about the core difference between Orthodox and Catholics. So you say the living of the sacrifice is a thing that is not lived at R.C.C., whereas is a common deep practice at O.?


I have heard about this book while reading "Diary" by Unamuno. It has many quotes from "Immitatio Christi" because Unamuno, the writer, throughout his book speakes about his intimate relationship with God. He's Catholic.

Slav

Sorry, not too sure what you mean here. What is "the living of the sacrifice" and why it "is not lived at R.C.C"?