Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism; Does it matter?


Well, Catholics can receive Communion at an Orthodox Church, but I believe specific conditions have to be met.

I’m not sure it’s because they “don’t like” the Pope. I think it’s rather because they believe the same about us as we believe about Protestants in regards to receiving Communion.

I do not doubt that this post was made with good intentions, but it sounds as though you’re basing this on some rather unpleasant personal experience rather than Orthodox teaching.


If you are torn between the both just become Byzantine Catholic. Byzantine Catholics recognize the Pope.


Some of these quotes are forgeries which are not recognized by many scholars as being authentic.


False. Catholics cannot receive communion at an Orthodox Church. I tried and the priest said no. He said I would have to renounce the Pope and convert to Orthodoxy.


It was hundreds of years old by 1014. It was that it was inserted into the Creed without a formal council that really made the issue boil over.


My post was based on facts. The Orthodox Church is not that accepting of others. That is probably why the Orthodox Church is not as large as the Catholic church as a whole.


Could you please give me a source or two?

Well the Catholic Church allows her members to receive at Orthodox Churches under certain circumstances. It may be different from the Orthodox perspective.


I think he is right. While EO may, in limited circumstances, receive in a Catholic Church, the Orthodox are often far more strict about Catholics in their Churches.

Orthodox tend to believe the differences between Catholics and Orthodox are greater than the inverse.


It is. I know that the Orthodox are allowed to receive communion at any Catholic Church. So are a few of the other churches that broke away from Rome, such as Polish National Catholic Church. From the Catholic perspective. But the Orthodox forbid their members to get communion anywhere else other than their own church.


Father Constantine Simon was a Catholic priest who advised the Vatican on the Eastern
Church. He eventually converted to the Russian Orthodox church.


“I believe in one God, Creator of heaven and earth . . .”

I’m not sure you’re going to find a source more specific than being the Nician-Constantinople creed, and the decrees of the council. I don’t mean to be pejorative, but this sourcing is one of those basic educational blocks and an assumed knowledge when discussing such things.

In this case, they seem to be not so much “in the way”, but the source of the problem . . .


It is a term of the Treaties of Brest and Uzhorod that we keep the councilor wording, our married priests, and so forth.



Cool. There are also Islamic Imaams who convert to Christianity, Christian Pastors who convert (well, “convert” isn’t right here) to atheism, Hindu Monks who convert to Buddhism, etc. etc.



838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272


It still wasn’t clearly defined. The doctrine of the papacy has developed gradually. Certainly the East recognized Rome as a final court of appeals, but there was no concept of Rome micromanaging the global Church as we see today. Don’t get me wrong, I fully accept the papacy, but the Church understands that we can’t really fault individual Orthodox Christians born into their tradition.


The Orthodox are extremely strict about communion even with their own members. I have been told by my Orthodox friend that if they travel and are visiting another parish, they must call where they are visiting first and must ask permission to get communion. Even if the person is Orthodox, the priest can refuse them. Some Orthodox priests have been known to play 21 questions before they give a visitor communion.


Considering a change in the Nicene creed is what is being discussed here, I don’t think the Nicene creed is that great of a source for this particular conversation… seems like circular reasoning to me.


Again, semantics.

(Those quotes with “semantics” after them will not be continued by me)


If it weren’t disrespectful to say so, I’d say “hierarchical recto-cranial inversion.”

Hmm, I’ll say it anyway.

As with so many things, it’s pride.

The sides are in “violent agreement” on the basic issues, and the theology. But there’s pride to be stalled about how hierarchs have created and sustained this mess.

Both agree that the Spirt originates in the Father, and proceeds temporally through the Son. Who gets to declare what is an issue. +Bartholomew and +Benedict could have, if the ROC would go along, have ended the schism. Similarly now, I suspect, with +Frances, as well as +John in the 60s. I can’t speak for +Paul, nor for the EP at the tie.

But, the short and long is pride.



That would be Nice I and Constantinople.



With charity, I didn’t intend to ask for the places/names of the councils. I intended to ask for specific quotes from those councils, which I have not gotten (this is my third time asking). I expect that someone who is willing to continue this debate and also knows the evidence that supports their side will show that evidence. The only reason I can see that one would not provide specific quotes would be because it’d be too much to quote (and if that is the case, please say so).

I am on my way to bed now. If I get a decent quote/argument overnight then I will respond in the morning, if I get up early enough to respond before going to work.


No, you’re missing the point: Nicea and Constantinople, in their decrees, prohibited changing in the creed.

It kind of begins and ends there: either the Pope can disregard an accepted Ecumenical Council, or he cannot.

That’s exactly what I’m saying: the whole thing *isI semantics, particularly in the differences between greek and latin.

This one is hardly semantics: the EC are not “allowed” to use the actual creed; their use was a condition Rome agreed to in re-establishing union.

You can look those up and goole as well as we can. These are basics in entering ti skind of discussion.


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.