Are Orthodox are Catholic theologies mutually exclusive?

I’m confused as to why Catholics and Orthodox disagree on how different they are. From my experience, most Catholics believe that Papal Supremacy is the only important difference, while most Orthodox would say that it’s much more than that. Does the Catholic Church officially teach that besides Papal Supremacy an Papal Infallibility, no contradiction exists between Western and Eastern theology? If so, then how is the Filioque controversy not mutually exclusive?

Best Regards.

Ike

icamhif #1
I’m confused as to why Catholics and Orthodox disagree on how different they are. From my experience, most Catholics believe that Papal Supremacy is the only important difference,

The vital fact to focus on is that Christ established His Church with the dogma and doctrine which St Peter and his successor popes teach infallibly. What the Church teaches is the key not what some believe.

The Orthodox have put themselves in the position of have fallen into the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, and rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

There is no longer any unity, any identifiable “official” position of Orthodoxy as such, in regard to unnatural methods of birth control. Some authorities continue to reprobate these practices, while others – probably the majority by now – condone them. Increasingly, Orthodox married couples are advised just to follow their own conscience on this issue.

Even foundational theology is now different… For example Catholic teaching is that everyone (even newborns) inherit original sin and are broken. For an Orthodox original sin only causes a potential for sin in people and that until we sin (no one it perfect so everyone will do so eventually) we are clean. Our sins are our own and not from a distant ancestor.

Eastern Orthodox are allowed (from the Roman Catholic pov, but not from the EO pov) to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic church.

Together we form one person and we cannot be separated.

Peace

Subscribing for the replies.

How does this translate into infant baptism, though? If the EO also baptize infants, is this not acknowledgment of the necessity of washing away the original sin that carries an inherited temporal effect on salvation?

Contrary to the popular conception of many Orthodox Christians and even Catholics, the “guilt” of Original Sin is NOT a personal guilt. The Catechism is clear on this. It refers primarily to man inheriting the CONSEQUENCES of Adam’s fall, but not personal guilt. Most importantly, we are conceived separated from God’s sanctifying grace. Baptism restores us to full communion with God by giving us a share of the very divine life of the Trinity (sanctifying grace). Fundamentally, I think many Orthodox can agree with this.
In regards to the Immaculate Conception, I know many Orthodox on this board vehemently disagree with the idea that it can be reconciled with Orthodox theology, but in reality there is a strong tradition of Our Lady’s “prepurification” in the East. Our Lady was always in perfect communion with the Blessed Trinity - she was conceived a saint. The rest of us require baptism in order to “put on Christ”. If we focus on the IC from this perspective, rather than framing it in the context of the “stain” of original sin, I think there is less of a divide. I’ve discussed this with a cousin who is Eastern Orthodox and he and his priest agreed with me on this issue. It really depends who you ask among the Orthodox.

I think the Catholics and Orthodox agree on most things, and are very much closer in beliefs than are Protestants and Catholics. The Orthodox and Catholic in fact were briefly reunited in the 15th century. There are some difference in a few matters. The Orthodox of course don’t consider the Pope the head of the Church, for example. I have some books on theology written by Orthodox and there is nothing in them Catholics wouldn’t believe. I have just been reading the first two volumes of the Philokalia with much appreciation. I think the difference could be ironed out and the Orthodox and Catholics be reunited, though I don’t see this in the next century or two and it would take much doing so that both the Orthodox and Catholic would accept it.

I’d really like to see some solid evidence for these claims. I have never been given any such advice nor have those that I know well enough to ask.

Whereas we Orthodox see Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same coin.

The Orthodox and Catholic in fact were briefly reunited in the 15th century.

No, the decisions of the Council of Florence were not accepted by the Orthodox. There was no brief union.

Baptism is a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. For those who have personal sins, baptism also has the effect of washing them away.
Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion are the threefold sacraments through which we are grafted into the body of Christ.

The sacraments are one important area in which the Orthodox and Catholics agree. Protestants, unlike the Orthodox and the Catholics, don’r have the eucharist at all.

Anyone below the age of reason or without the mental capacity to commit personal sins does not need baptism to wash them away. And yet, because of Sacred Tradition handed down from the apostles, Orthodox baptize infants anyway.

Why would Tradition teach infant baptism if the Apostles did not believe that infants needed original sin washed away?

Which of the five solas of Protestantism has the Roman Catholic Church accepted?

No, the decisions of the Council of Florence were not accepted by the Orthodox. There was no brief union.

It’s my understanding that the representatives of the East contributed to the formulation of the Council’s decisions and signed the documents it produced. It wasn’t until they got home that those who weren’t even in attendance objected.

Is this correct?

Where do these doctrines come from in the EO. This is the “only” point as you well know I am interested in. :shrug: Where can I find and read these?

Infants and the intellectually challenged still need to be joined to Christ’s body for their salvation. As I said before, Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion achieve this.

Why would Tradition teach infant baptism if the Apostles did not believe that infants needed original sin washed away?

Because that is not the only thing that baptism does, and infants still have need of the others.

Why does the Catholic Church excommunicate infants when the early Church did no such thing? Why does the Catholic Church bar the little ones from Christ’s life giving blood and the bread of immortality?

When did the Catholic Church come up with its doctrine of the “age of reason” in defense of their departure from Apostolic tradition?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

It’s my understanding that the representatives of the East contributed to the formulation of the Council’s decisions and signed the documents it produced. It wasn’t until they got home that those who weren’t even in attendance objected.

Is this correct?

Two representatives of the East willingly capitulated to the Latin demands, the rest only under extreme duress although those who had the means to return home left early and did not sign, St mark of Ephesus refused to sign and the Patriarch of Constantinople died before the signing took place.
Those who weren’t in attendance did not recognise the proceedings of the Council of Florence because it did not represent the Orthodox faith.

Creed states for the remission of sin, they have none, whats the purpose other then the specific intention of the creed?

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly *, if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).

I don’t see it “anywhere” Specifically Baptism is for the remission of sin in relation to Adam? Or is there explicit documentation otherwise from pre 300?

[quote]children, and aware neither of [loss nor of grace]?= Adam and Eve

For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam,

Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins

There are primary and secondary intentions. The primary is stated above and per Creed. Its the “remission of Sin” from Adam. The rest are secondary intentions.
[/quote]

Does the Catholic Church officially teach that Catholic and Orthodox theology are not mutually exclusive (minus the Papal Office)? If so, where?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.