ortho-cathlidoxy


#1

I read with much interest the Orthodox/Catholic debates on other threads, but can’t read the entire threads as I’m already in my mid-forties. I have a question or two. I am Catholic.

Are the Orthodox teaching (in the Catholic Church’s opinion) any error besides Papal in-infallibility?

Do all the Orthodox Churches together form some kind of union maybe somewhat like the Catholic Churches but (obviously) without a Pope?

Are the Catholics teaching (in the Orthodox opinion) any error besides Papal infallibillity?

Thanks in advance.


#2

[quote=mark a]I read with much interest the Orthodox/Catholic debates on other threads, but can’t read the entire threads as I’m already in my mid-forties. I have a question or two. I am Catholic.

Are the Orthodox teaching (in the Catholic Church’s opinion) any error besides Papal in-infallibility?

Do all the Orthodox Churches together form some kind of union maybe somewhat like the Catholic Churches but (obviously) without a Pope?

Are the Catholics teaching (in the Orthodox opinion) any error besides Papal infallibillity?

Thanks in advance.

[/quote]

No, they do not teach any other errors according to the Catholic Church.

There is some kind of union between some of the Orthodox churches. There are some eastern churches like the coptic Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox and others that aren’t in communion with the others.

The Orthodox think that the Catholic church teaches error on a few things. They include the filioque(and the Son), papal infalability, Purgatory. There are some other differences but these are the main ones.

The only things that are keeping us apart are papal infallability and the filioque. The filioque is not as big of a diference as it is made out to be though. So the main problem in union is the pope.


#3

It is not so much that the Orthodox teach error as that they refuse to teach the truth. That the Schism persists has more to do with (literally) damnable pride on both sides than with substantive doctrinal disagreements. That said, no reconciliation can be effected until such time as the Orthodox acknowledge the Faith as taught by the 21 ecumenical councils.


#4

Thanks Jimmy. I have enjoyed Fr. Ambrose’ and your give and take on these issues.


#5

[quote=GrzeszDeL]It is not so much that the Orthodox teach error as that they refuse to teach the truth. That the Schism persists has more to do with (literally) damnable pride on both sides than with substantive doctrinal disagreements. That said, no reconciliation can be effected until such time as the Orthodox acknowledge the Faith as taught by the 21 ecumenical councils.
[/quote]

Thanks for the link. Is there a similar (Orthodox) “counterpoint” link that you can share?


#6

[quote=GrzeszDeL]It is not so much that the Orthodox teach error as that they refuse to teach the truth. That the Schism persists has more to do with (literally) damnable pride on both sides than with substantive doctrinal disagreements. That said, no reconciliation can be effected until such time as the Orthodox acknowledge the Faith as taught by the 21 ecumenical councils.
[/quote]

Grz, my brother!

I cannot believe that you placed that article for our perusal. It is a piece of unmitigated piffle and hate. It condems all the Orthodox to hell…

catholicism.org/pages/eastschism.htm

Now you know, despite your personal beliefs on this matter, that the Catholic Church does not teach this since Vatican II. Just read the relevant Vat.II documents as well as the contemporary CCC. They all teach that the Orthodox have the full means of salvation and all the Sacraments availible to them in their own Church…

But look at the contradictory nonsense which your article offers…

"… only a small concession has to be made by the Orthodox Schismatics to once again become part of the One True Church, and put themselves back on the road to salvation.
"One of the main reasons that Christian souls go to Hell? Yes, sadly, because the Orthodox Schismatics, who are Christian, have renounced obedience to the Supreme Head of the Church — the Roman Pontiff. As such, because of this, there is no hope of forgiveness of sins, or of sanctifying grace received through the illicit use of the Catholic Church’s sacraments while remaining in such a schismatic communion.

“If the Orthodox only knew the precarious position in which they find themselves as regards their final end!”

This is all glorious stuff pre-Vatican II, but you know that the Catholic position has changed radically since then,


#7

[quote=mark a]Thanks for the link. Is there a similar (Orthodox) “counterpoint” link that you can share?
[/quote]

No, there is NOT - because the Orthodox do NOT teach that Roman Catholics cannot be saved.

The Orthodox position can be quickly summed up in the words of a Russian theologian…

**"Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and … does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day. **

**"**The Church on earth judges for herself only, according to the grace of the Spirit, and the freedom granted her through Christ, inviting also the rest of mankind to the unity and adoption of God in Christ; but upon those who do not hear her appeal she pronounces no sentence, knowing the command of her Saviour and Head, “not to judge another man’s servant” (Rom. 14. 4)."
**
**(Alexei Khomiakov, “The Church is One”)

This essay is at
orthodoxphotos.com/readings/one/visible.shtml
and also
westernorthodox.com/khomiakov


#8

[quote=GrzeszDeL]It is not so much that the Orthodox teach error as that they refuse to teach the truth. That the Schism persists has more to do with (literally) damnable pride on both sides than with substantive doctrinal disagreements. That said, no reconciliation can be effected until such time as the Orthodox acknowledge the Faith as taught by the 21 ecumenical councils.
[/quote]

If it please God that I should die for unity under the earthly headship of St. Peter’s successor, so be it. I am ready to die for truth. — St. Josaphat of Polotsk

When are you going to return to the Gospels? We sorted out that ego trip once and for all when Christ sent Paul to us!


#9

[quote=Myhrr]If it please God that I should die for unity under the earthly headship of St. Peter’s successor, so be it. I am ready to die for truth. — St. Josaphat of Polotsk
[/quote]

Well, as we know, Josaphat of Polotsk was killed for Rome, in one sense. But it wasn’t really for the truth. The truth is that the people whom he was accustomed to killing by beheading and burning rose up against him and his men one day and battered him to death, poor man.

Please refer to this message on the Catholic mailing list…

cin.org/archives/apolo/199810/0580.html


#10

The article mentions the illicit use of sacraments by the Orthodox clergy (from a Catholic point of view). Since, from what I understand, the sacrament of confession/penance can be validly and licitly used only within an authorized physical sphere, those in schism with the Church but who are nonetheless validly ordained cannot actually absolve the sins of those who confess to them. This means that SSPX clergy cannot absolve sins, and, I would assume, neither can the Orthodox since they have no jurisdiction granted from Rome, and are in formal schism.

So does this mean that all Orthodox sacraments are valid except for confession?


#11

[quote=St. Gimp]The article mentions the illicit use of sacraments by the Orthodox clergy (from a Catholic point of view).
[/quote]

That article sent by Grz is a collection of pre-Vatican II errors and he probably sent it to stir me up :smiley: I wouldn’t be surprised if the site belongs to an extremist Catholic group like the Feeneyites?

So does this mean that all Orthodox sacraments are valid except for confession?

Vatican II was explicit in recognizing both the validity and the efficacy of all Orthodox sacraments. See “Unitatis Redintegratio” and the Ecumenical Directory [1993] 99a.


#12

[quote=Fr Ambrose][/font]
[/quote]

Well, as we know, Josaphat of Polotsk was killed for Rome, in one sense. But it wasn’t really for the truth. The truth is that the people whom he was accustomed to killing by beheading and burning rose up against him and his men one day and battered him to death, poor man.

Please refer to this message on the Catholic mailing list…

[cin.org/archives/apolo/199810/0580.html](“http://www.cin.org/archives/apolo/199810/0580.html”)

And Pope John Paul II wants to make him a Saint, he’s already in the process.

This is what I find totally unacceptable from the RCC and the ‘Orthodox’ EP, their joint efforts to destroy the memory of the pillars of Orthodoxy who stood against the papal pretentions. If Vat II has included more from Orthodoxy then the Orthodox are being led into neo-papism, neither is authentic to its origins - no wonder everyone’s so confused…


#13

The article posted by GrzesDel is from a Feeneyite website, not a Roman Catholic one.

Father Leonard Feeney (1897-1978) was an American Jesuit priest who insisted on a rigorous interpretation of the Catholic doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or “outside the church there is no salvation”, arguing that all non-Catholics go to hell. He was officially excommunicated in 1953 by Pope Pius XII for refusing to submit to ecclesiastical authority, but his supporters claim that the excommunication was invalid.

All articles from the website should be treated as suspect. Do not assume automatically that this information reflects the teaching of the church, refer to more legitimate sources for information.


#14

[quote=Fr Ambrose]That article sent by Grz is a collection of pre-Vatican II errors and he probably sent it to stir me up :smiley: I wouldn’t be surprised if the site belongs to an extremist Catholic group like the Feeneyites?
[/quote]

Father Ambrose,

As you suspected and as Michael has pointed out, the site is indeed Feeneyite; St. Benedict’s in Raymond, NH, is one of the last strongholds of the movement and has not yet regularized its status vis-a-vis the Church, as have some of the other former Feenyite communities. Grz seems to have a strong attraction to these folks, since he has linked to their site a number of times now. That the author opened the piece with quotes from both Josaphat and Andrew Bobola, the mentions of whom (their sainted status notwithstanding) raises the ire of our Orthodox brothers and sisters, was a fair indication of how balanced that diatribe would be - without even reading it.

Many years,

Neil


#15

[quote=Hesychios]The article posted by GrzesDel is from a Feeneyite website, not a Roman Catholic one.

All articles from the website should be treated as suspect. Do not assume automatically that this information reflects the teaching of the church, refer to more legitimate sources for information.
[/quote]

He was excommunicated for disobedience, not for heresy. Much as I dislike the dogmas of the RCPC I think it more than a bit unfair that those who adhere to them are marginalised and vilified when the dogmas themselves are still very much in place and still have the status of infallible teaching.


#16

For mercy’s sake! The article, while penned by a Feeneyite, contains nothing that is not strictly true from a Catholic point of view, even a post Vatican II Catholic point of view. It is indeed true that Vatican II recognizes the validity of Orthodox sacraments, but that is not at all to say that Vatican II has somehow magically made non-Catholic sacraments salvific. Outside the Catholic Church their is neither salvation nor forgiveness of sins - this is the immutable teaching of the Church as defined by ecumenical councils and solemn papal teachings, and Vatican II has not breathed a word in contradiction of this holy truth. It is true that the Feeneyite thesis was condemned as heresy, but the article in question does not allude to the condemned thesis.

Incidentally, I should say that the Orthodox sacrament of confession is not troubled by the same difficulties that afflict the SSPX. The SSPX cannot validly administer the sacrament because their priests are acting in defiance of their legitimately constituted bishops. The Orthodox priest, however, is acting with the approval of his legitimately constituted bishop, so the validity of the confessions which he hears are not in the least wise diminished. For all that though, these sacraments are grossly illicit, and are sinful in themselves. As such, even as the priest forgives the sins of the penitent, both the priest and the penitent commit even worse sin.

Likewise, by way of brief aside, I am somewhat confused by Myhrr’s claim that John Paul II is trying to make Holy Josaphat a saint. Holy Josaphat was canonized by Bl. Pius IX back in 1876. John Paul II has nothing to do with the procedure, aside from his great devotion to the saintly man. Perhaps Myhrr is thinking of Bl. Theodore Romzha?


#17

[quote=GrzeszDeL]It is true that the Feeneyite thesis was condemned as heresy…
[/quote]

Boy, now that I have said that, I hope that my old buddy Debtera does not show up on this thread. He always gets so worked up whenever I say something like that. :bigyikes:


#18

[quote=Fr Ambrose]Vatican II was explicit in recognizing both the validity and the efficacy of all Orthodox sacraments. See “Unitatis Redintegratio” and the Ecumenical Directory [1993] 99a.
[/quote]

I realize that the article is extreme and incorrect in many places, but my question is somewhat outside of that. If Vatican II recognized the validity of all the Orthodox sacraments, is this a contradiction of the common Catholic teaching that the sacrament of penance can only be validly administrated with explicit permission of the pope and the bishops in communion with him? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the Catholic teaching on this, but I thought that those outside Catholic communion but with valid priestly orders (such as the SSPX) are not only forbidden to perform confessions, but are actually unable to because they lack the permission of the Holy See. Thus their absolutions would be ineffective. Is this a misunderstanding on my part, or is the situation somehow different with the Orthodox than it is with the SSPX?

(I don’t mean to imply that the Orthodox and the SSPX are essentially the same, but there are similarities in this case that seem relevant to the discussion.)


#19

[quote=GrzeszDeL]Incidentally, I should say that the Orthodox sacrament of confession is not troubled by the same difficulties that afflict the SSPX. The SSPX cannot validly administer the sacrament because their priests are acting in defiance of their legitimately constituted bishops. The Orthodox priest, however, is acting with the approval of his legitimately constituted bishop, so the validity of the confessions which he hears are not in the least wise diminished.
[/quote]

Ah, that helps.


#20

[quote=GrzeszDeL]Outside the Catholic Church their is neither salvation nor forgiveness of sins…
[/quote]

Err, I mean “there is neither salvation nor forgiveness of sins.” Sorry for the typo. :o


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.