/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

One is right and one is wrong

:^)

>>564623

Funding

schools of mysticism (mental images in prayer vs hesychasm, among other things)

The Orthodox see the Bishop of Rome as a honorary title, as the "first among equals." Catholics obviously see the pope as something more than that

Roman Catholics love diapers while Eastern Orthodox love Turks

>>564709

This

One likes beards and the other doesn't

Essence-Energy Distinction maybe

The question of papal authority. Every other distinction stems from it.

Read Aquinas then read Palamas and you'll understand.

>>564762

Having read enough of Aquinas and of Palamas to have a moderate idea of their doctrines and methodology… I have no clue what you have in mind here.

>>564623

Primacy of the Pope instituted by God, thus the Church of Rome remains orthodox -> Catholic

The Church of Rome remains orthodox, thus primacy of the Pope instituted by man -> Orthodox

There are many other differences, but the only reason they snowballed into a 1000-year long schism, besides Byzantine pride and the Pope not caring, is this very issue of what exactly is the mission of the Pope within the Church and where this authority comes from.

For secondary (but still major) disagreements, from most to least difficult to handle…

- The intermediary state of the soul before the final judgment (Catholic: full Heaven/Hell or Purgatory for those headed for Heaven but not purified of venial sin, and prayer & penance can get one out of Purgatory faster; Orthodox: partial Heaven/Hell, and prayer & penance can get one out of Hell)

- The form and intention of baptism (while Orthodox baptisms are valid from a Catholic perspective, it's more difficult to say from an Orthodox perspective, as wrong intentions suffice to make a baptism invalid, and one may argue that baptism by sprinkling is a wrong intention as it was originally reserved for urgent situations. Same goes for the Eucharist, with the autism over leavened vs unleavened bread and communion under a single kind)

- The theory of original sin, guilt, & divine retribution that is that of Augustine and, more particularly, of Anselm (they can be understood as a theologoumenon in Catholicism but can simply not be anything but anathema in Orthodoxy)

- The Amazing Filioque (would've been °1 on the list a century ago, but nowadays we're done surprising progress)

- Disciplines for fasts & liturgies (the East always saw the West as having watered-down, lazy disciplines, but this is worse since Vatican II)

Different clothes, different region(catholics in the west orthodox in the east), a lot of orthodox dunk for baptisem, and that's pretty much it.

>>564817

Basically, at the current point, we can express things the same way, but nonetheless, Anselm's theology can be acceptable in Catholicism, but absolutely not in Orthodoxy.

Basically, we can express things the same way (about original sin, about guilt, about divine retribution), but the limits to which this common expression can be stretched are different. In particular: in Catholicism, it can be stretched to the limits of satisfaction theory being acceptable. In Orthodoxy, it can be stretched to the limits of universalism being acceptable. While both of those views are rather fringe today, they nonetheless show that even if we say things the same way, it is with a different state of mind.

I'm sorry it's not very clear… But the fact that a saint and major theologian in Latin Catholicism couldn't possibly be tolerated in Orthodoxy because of his theology shows that there's a big difference somewhere in there, even if it's not too clear.

>>564817

http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin

>>564820

That article does a good job at expressing the Orthodox doctrine of original sin, but terribly misrepresents the Catholic doctrine.

It's worth noting at time of schism I'm sure no one thought it would last this long.

>>564623

One is a band of heretics, the others are wizards.

>>564623

>>564817

The Orthodox view of original sin is similar to the Protestant one, we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin and a sinful nature/ The Catholic view is that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, which is removed by baptism

>>564920

>The Catholic view is that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin

That is absolutely untrue, not to mention a preposterous position in and of itself.

Are you guilty of the sins of your father? Do you think you will be judged for his sins by God at the final judgment.

I've noticed a lot of unwarranted anti-Catholic opinions being presented as facts on this board, especially by Orthodox flags…

>>564924

>That is absolutely untrue, not to mention a preposterous position in and of itself.

It is preposterous, but I grew up Catholic and that's exactly what we learned in Sunday school. It all comes straight from the writings of St. Augustine. It's the whole reason Limbo was once a dogma of the church and why the Immaculate Conception still is.

>>564939

Wrong and wrong again buddy. Good gracious, there is so much wrong in your posts, I honestly don't know where to start… (great trolling skills?)

> It all comes straight from the writings of St. Augustine

You didn't quote any writings. St Augustine is a saint, not God himself. Can you quote me his writings that were supposedly promulgated as authoritative teaching by a pope ex cathedra?

>It's the whole reason Limbo was once a dogma of the church and why the Immaculate Conception still is.

Completely backwards. "It" (meaning the assertion that original sin confers guilt) never will be, is not, and never has been a Church teaching. I don't want to waste too much time here because I am almost sure that you are not being sincere (deliberately obtuse?). I will just say that the Immaculate Conception is a dogma because the STAIN of original sin remains after baptism which is logically inconceivable that God would be given life through a vessel (Mary) STAINED by original sin, which is why the dogma states that she was preserved from original sin.

Limbo was never a DOGMA of the Catholic Church. Rather, it was a theory proposed by some theologians and widely adopted at certain times in certain circles in history. The proposition was put forth because there is an unanswered question of where unbaptized babies go. They are not guilty of personal sin, so God would not punish them because God is all-just. Therefore, they would be in a state of "Limbo" i.e. deprived from the beatific vision but preserved from punishment. Again, Limbo was NEVER a dogma and is free to be rejected or accepted by the Magisterium.

> is preposterous, but I grew up Catholic and that's exactly what we learned in Sunday school

Could be your fault, could be the fault of your teachers or whomever. Regardless, what you learned was untrue and/or you neglected to discover the truth for yourself. Hopefully this post will help correct your errors and you will stop preaching as some kind of supposed authority on the Catholic Faith, something which you are assuredly not.

>>564924

Cradle Catholic, was def taught that

>>564939

>>564956

>Cradle Catholic, was def taught that

<Cradle Catholic, was def my understanding

(This is most likely a more accurate statement.)