/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>581306

the orthodoxy disagrees with the concept of papal infallibility and deny the immaculate conception of mother mary

>>581314

>Orthodox allow divorce, Catholics don't.

>Orthodox allow contraception ( after you consult the priest), Catholics don't (they practice NFP, which is similar but different)

This is a gross misrepresentation and you shouldn't pay any attention to it. For example, the Orthodox view of marriage today is actually stricter than than the Catholic, in that even marriage after a spouse has passed away is discouraged, the idea being that you should respect your spouse's memory.

The differences are very complex and in order to understand them properly you have to read extensively about the history of the Church. To make it easier to understand, split the differences into three rough categories: there are doctrinal differences, ecclesiastical (organisational) differences and traditional (practical) differences.

>Doctrinal

The most obvious doctrinal difference is the Filioque. The Filoque is a clause which alters the Nicene Creed so that it says the Holy Spirit 'proceeds from the Father and the Son' rather than just from the Father. The Filoque was inserted into the Nicene Creed in Spain in the ninth century as a safeguard against the Heresy of Arianism. It later spread throughout Northern Europe and was eventually adopted by Rome.

The other crucial doctrinal difference are known as the 'Papal claims.' In the early Church, the Bishop of Rome was considered to be the first among equals, and that the see of Rome had the most honourable seat at ecumenical councils. However; the Pope had no more personal authority on matters of the faith than the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. These were also in a set order of primacy, but did not have authority over each other. Towards the end of the first millennium the Pope began declaring universal authority over the entire church, which the East never accepted, and declared himself to be infallible, thereby bypassing the need for Ecumenical Councils, which had been the main method of decision-making in the church over the centuries. Today Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility are defined dogmas of the Roman Catholic church. There are no such equivalents in the Orthodox church and they have never been accepted.

>Ecclesiastical

The Roman Catholic Church has one head, the Pope, and a college of Cardinals who sit under him. The Catholic Church is one body which follows the same heirarchy everywhere in the world. The Orthodox faith; however, is divided into a number of national churches with heads called Patriarchs or Metropolitans, depending on the seniority of their church. There is no 'Pope' in Orthodoxy. There is an Ecumenical Patriarch (The Patriarch of Constantinople), but he is considered 'first among equals' as the Pope was before the Great Schism.

>Traditional

The Eucharistic Service in the Catholic Church is called Holy Communion, whereas in the Orthodox Church it is referred to as Divine Liturgy. There are a number of differences in this service, ranging from minor grammatical ones in particular forms of prayer all the way through to fundamental variations in the significance of various parts. The Eastern churches used leavened bread in communion (the typical sort of raised loaf you eat every day), whereas the Catholic church uses unleavened bread (the wafers with the cross icon in the center). In Catholic communion the bread and the wine Eastern churches don't typically have pews whereas almost all Catholic churches do.

More generally, the Orthodox liturgy has remained virtually unchanged for over a thousand years, whereas the Catholic liturgy has changed substantially, most recently with Vatican II. The Catholic Church has also defined a number of dogmas since the schism which the Orthodox have not accepted, such as the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. Remember that this board is full of Catholics who are hostile to Orthodoxy (like the posters above) and you should be wary of them if you are trying to form a balanced view of the two churches.

>>581319

>In Catholic communion the bread and the wine

Oops - let me finish that:

In Catholic communion the bread and the wine are consecrated and then given to the communicants separately. Sometimes the body is given in the hand rather than directly into the mouth. In Orthodox communion the body and blood are given directly into the mouth together, because the pieces of bread are floating in the chalice containing the wine and administered using a spoon.

Both Catholic and Orthodox believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics, however, have a particular dogma describing this presence called transubstantiation, which is based on medieval scholastic theology. The Orthodox have no specific metaphysics concerning the Eucharist; instead they regard it as a mystery.

See the Council of Florence for a clear picture of what we disagree about, and why we do.

The main issues that have separated us are:

- The doctrine of the "filioque." The Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

- The legitimacy of the "filioque" phrase that was interpolated in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in the first place. The Catholics believe that the ecumenical councils did not forbid any such clarifications to be added to the creed, and the Pope has the right to add something to the creed without calling for an ecumenical council if it becomes needed to fight heresy. The Orthodox believe that the Council of Ephesus and the council at Constantinople in 879-880 forbid anyone, even another council, from adding words to the creed as defined at the 1st Council of Constantinople.

- The use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. Catholics believe that unleavened bread can be used. Orthodox believe that it must not be used, and that leavened bread alone is supposed to be used.

- Purgatory. Catholics believe in three states for the soul before the final judgment: Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory; Heaven for the saved, Hell for the damned, temporary Purgatory for those who will be saved but did not die purified of sin, and the prayers of the Mass are for those who are in Purgatory to make their purgation quicker and less painful. Orthodox believe in two states only: Heaven and Hell; and the prayers of the Liturgy are for those who are in Heaven so that they could enjoy better bliss, and for those who are in Hell so that they could suffer lesser torment, to the point they might even be saved.

- Papal primacy. Catholics believe that the primacy of the Pope is to be a form of "supremacy" according to which the Pope is fundamentally and always the head of the Church, he has universal jurisdiction, he can define dogma infallibly when doing so with the intent of fulfilling his office as teacher of the whole Church, and he inherits this apostolic role from Peter; as a result, the Church of Rome fundamentally cannot fall into heresy. Orthodox believe that the primacy of the Pope is to be a form of "first among equals" according to which the Pope, being Patriarch of Rome, is no different from any other patriarch, and indeed from any other bishop, and Peter's special mission extends to all bishops; as a result, the Church of Rome can fall into heresy (and, since the 11th century, has been in heresy).

These are the historical doctrinal disputes. For recent ecumenical outlooks on these, and on what we can agree and disagree on today, see:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_orthodox-ch.htm

http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/ministries/dialogue/orthodox-catholic/

For the actual schism itself:

It happened over a long period.

The break between Rome and Constantinople: the two bishops broke communion with each other in 1009 for unknown reasons. In 1452, communion between Rome and Constantinople resumed, based on the decrees of the Council of Florence. In 1484, communion officially ended again, although in practice, it had ended also in 1452, after the fall of Constantinople.

The break between Rome and Alexandria: The bishop of Alexandria excommunicated the bishop of Rome in 1204 due to the sack of Constantinople.

The break between Rome and Antioch: AFAIK, we're not sure when exactly Antioch broke communion with Rome. It is thought that Antioch remained in communion with Rome and with Constantinople even if commemoration ceased, but commemoration of the Pope resumed with Jesuit evangelization in the 16th century, until the Melkite schism in 1729 in which the pro-Catholic party broke communion with Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, and the pro-Orthodox party broke communion with Rome.

The break between Rome and Jerusalem: The bishop of Jerusalem excommunicated the bishop of Rome in 1204 due to the sack of Constantinople.

>>581313

If we anathematized the Immaculate Conception, two of the three saints who are called "Pillars of Orthodoxy" (St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus) wouldn't unapologetically support it.

We're more bothered by it being made a dogma necessary for salvation.

>>581314

>NFP is not contraception

lol

You don't get to say "all contraception is bad" then define for yourself what counts as "contraception."

Many of the saints who are cited by Catholics to defend equating the sin of Onan with murder also saw NFP as being equal to murder, you know.

Do not fool anybody - natural law theory is the main reason that the use of "artificial" contraception is a mortal sin when "natural" contraception isn't.

>>581306

And just for illustrative purposes: one very visual difference between the Orthodox and Catholic communion is that Catholic priests genuflect (fall onto one knee) during consecration whereas Orthodox prostrate themselves (watch from about 3:15 in the video).

I find it weird you guys wrote big posts about doctrine and church structure, but didn't mention at all how since the schism you've barely evangelized. when I tried researching the evangelization of the schismatic churches, all I could find was Protestants who hate Catholics so they become Orthodox, Japan, and Alaska.

>>581319

>This is a gross misrepresentation and you shouldn't pay any attention to it. For example, the Orthodox view of marriage today is actually stricter than than the Catholic, in that even marriage after a spouse has passed away is discouraged, the idea being that you should respect your spouse's memory.

>3 divorces is more traditional than no divorce

>because remarriage is frowned upon after death of spouse.

You seem very dishonest. I'm sure you respond to this post by talking about how the priests are so disappointed in you and are so solemn when they perform your third marriage ceremony. as for your point why it is more traditional, it's an Scriptures so Catholics have the same view.

>>581330

I'm sorry I was not more clear, artificial contraception has become so linked with the word contraception I did not even make the connection.

>>581339

Mal 1:11

>For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

this is obviously only fulfilled by the Catholic Church, which is the only church which can be considered universal.

>>581342

I am not Orthodox myself and I don't know the history particularly well, but I would say that evangelizing post-schism has been somewhat of a tall order considering the centuries of violent suppression under the Saracens, the Turks and the communists. That doesn't speak for what's happening today, however, but I would say in my experience I see no more evangelizing from Catholics than I do from Orthodox. In fact, the only real evangelizing I have ever encountered was being done by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Bear in mind I do not live in the USA, whose significant Catholic lobby has historically had substantial impact, but that wouldn't be surprising when you compare the size of the two churches there, would it?

>>581313

>deny the immaculate conception

What? No way.

>>581350

The Catholic Church only made the immaculate conception a dogma in 1854, and had never even been suggested before the 12th century, by which time the East had already stopped paying attention to what the West was doing.

>>581349

while what Jehovah's Witnesses do might work for them, I don't think it would work for the good news.

To address your argument, what you are saying amounts to blasphemy and is saying God isn't able to convert the world because His people was oppressed by the Saracens, or that God does not have divine providence. I'm sure the Orthodox tried with all their efforts to evangelize, but it didn't yield results, while Catholic efforts yielded great results. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches plant, but it is God that gives the growth. Furthermore consider, how since the schism the Catholic and Orthodox churches have went through many crisis, every time a crisis is over for the Catholic Church it yields great results, while the Orthodox it does not seem so. It was the same with the early church, the Early church and the heretics planted, but got gave the growth to the Catholic Church. The Early church was severely pruned, and the Catholic Church just came back stronger and with more Saints. ask yourself if what happened to the Orthodox churches happened to the early church what would happen and would the result be the same?

>>581355

>The Avignon Papacy yielded great results

>The Reformation yielded great results

>Vatican II yielded great results

>saying that human beings can thwart the efforts of other human beings is blasphemy

I respect your Church but I cannot respect your position on this.

I really hate all of this militant sectarianism and hostility to each other. In this day and age, the two churches it is most important respect and co-operate with each other are the Catholic and the Orthodox churches. In the early days, Christians were persecuted and suppressed wherever they were. Later, they became the dominant force and bound entire civilizations intimately to their faith all over the world. Now Christianity is once again weak and suppressed, and the situation gets worse with every coming year with no end in sight. The difference is that in the days of Rome all Christians were united in faith and solidarity. Today we are terribly fragmented. What hope can we have if we (especially those two Churches who have preserved more of the Christian tradition by far than any others) do not get along with each other in the face of our common enemies? On the final day of the siege of Constantinople, the last Christian service in the Hagia Sophia was held. Both Catholics and Orthodox put aside their differences in the midst of crisis and united to worship. The Byzantine Emperor left the church after receiving communion and died fighting on the city walls. We should learn from their example and stop despising each other.

>>581378

>what sectarianism and hostility? I just posted out of love for OP

At this point I'm convinced this is a falseflag.

>>581342

>this is obviously only fulfilled by the Catholic Church, which is the only church which can be considered universal.

Roman Catholicism deserves better poster

>>581342

>I'm sure you respond to this post by talking about how the priests are so disappointed in you and are so solemn when they perform your third marriage ceremony.

That's some serious projection there, fam.

>>582231

>'sin against ecumenism'

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like morality of man, not of God. Is it a sin against God's law, or is it not?

On a pragmatic level, I happen to agree with him purely on the basis that we should be striving for the best relations possible between the apostolic churches, and aggressive Catholic proselytising in Orthodox lands has always engendered long-lasting grudges and bitterness in the past, but to call it a 'sin' is something stronger than that.

>Catholic

>Heretic

Pick one lad.

>>582231

>Pope pushing false-ecumenism

I means he's wrong and you're a heretic.

>>582236

Wasn't false ecumenism denounced at Vatican II

Does that mean the pope is a heretic

>>582236

>the pope is wrong

I don't want to start another petty argument here, but shouldn't you be taking off that flag?

>>582240

Yeah it's no good, the only logical options I've been given by >>582236 are:

>the pope is right

in which case even by Catholic standards I'm safe in Orthodoxy and need not convert

or

>the pope is wrong

meaning I'm forced to accept that a random poster on this website has greater theological insight and true doctrinal teaching than the supposed vicar of Christ, the head of the church I'm being asked to convert to, who may even be teaching directly against the doctrine of his church according to said poster – in which case why would I want to convert to a church like that, where the leader isn't in agreement with the doctrine of his own church?

It seems like the Pope's statement is sort of a Catch 22 for any Catholics trying to convert Orthodox. Besides I tend to agree with >>582234 that this stuff is a waste of time that only leads to resentments. There are several former Catholics that are members of my parish and absolutely none of them were converted by being called heretics by Orthodox, whether online or irl. Rather than focusing on the interchurch traffic it might be better to take a look at those leaving the churches altogether, but that's another story…

>>582249

I'll tell you something about the popes over the last 50 years. They said things that are in direct contradiction to what all their predecessors held true. So you have 1 pope saying it's a sin, you have 50 who would laugh at that statement. Sadly, the Church is not in a good state and hasn't been since VII. When it comes to ecumenism it's especially true, this concept we have today never existed in the Church until the 1960s.

It's also important to remember that there is a solemn, infallible dogma from the council of Florence which says:

>“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Last several popes have very much ignored this. So when you see what the current pope is saying, you have to compare it to what is the consensus of his predecessors - all who are not in union with Rome are heretics and schismatics and are thus denied salvation in the objective sense.

>>582269

>I'll tell you something about the popes over the last 50 years. They said things that are in direct contradiction to what all their predecessors held true

So much for papal infallibility

>>582270

Man, do you understand what papal infallibility is? It applies only when a pope solemnly pronounces dogma, not when he says 'eating chicken is a sin because I don't like it'. It does not apply to ordinary magisterium such as encyclicals or interviews, it does not apply to things regarding discipline or canon law or Church politics. The dogma I quoted is infallible, any pope who would say anything contrary to it is simply wrong.

Most things that are in contradiction are in regard to church discipline, theology and ecumenism. None of these come under the infallibility hat, it's just that things have been done which no pope would've dared to do in the past. I, nor either catholic, is bound by dogma to accept this new ecumenism and other things. I don't have the obligation to go to 'interdenominational meetings' or whatever. I think it's baloney and have every right to think that.

>>581366

Didn't even read the whole thread but yeah we're all getting globally pissed

The Eastern Church Patriarchs acknowledge the Pope as Head of the Bishops but refuse his authority because they perceive him to be acting from a position of authoritarian dictatorship not brotherly love. That is the crux of the schism.

>>582272

>Man, do you understand what papal infallibility is?

I understand that when your ultimate authority changes with the times and contradicts itself that your epistemology is a failure.

>>582299

Wrong. We do not accept the pope because we acknowledge the apostles as having equal authority.

>>581355

>God isn't able to convert the world because His people was oppressed by the Saracens

Yeah, they just capture millions of catholic meds into slavery until the 18th century, when AMERICA comes in and puts an end to it, and completely islamise North Africa(and from that area, is now starting to islamise France and Spain), which belonged to the See of Rome.

And let's not forget how fruitful you were in the middle East, where your crusaders managed to piss off the rest of the Pentarchy into siding with us definitely(from accepting the latin bishop with open arms at the start of the whole thing), before having to run with your tail between your legs once the saracens got their stuff together.

Or that time you pissed off the emperor of China into throwing you out of his country by treating him like some shitty vassal, and your monks going at each other's throats, when before that, your explorers had gotten everyone curious about catholicism, and your guys were well-liked at court.

But no biggie, it's not like China is a big deal, and now your prottie cousins are doing the whole evangelism thing for you, in that country.

And speaking of China, let's also not forget how you convinced a large part of the nestorian christians(which stretched from Syria to China!) to come back into communion with Rome, and how they nearly got genocided off the face of the planet by mongols decades later.

And they've gotten genocided a few times since, for good measure, until they are a shadow of their old influence that could never recover their old territory back.

What a superb rebound.

Shall we remember how the uniates got squashed by commies into being a negligible percentage of their host countries, and haven't recovered to this day?

Oh, oh, and speaking of greek-catholics, let's not forget how your beloved bishop Irish treated them like such shit, they got fed up, and asked for Moscovite patronage(atleast those guys didn't try to deport their priests out of the continent).

Would you like me to continue?

But i'm sure you will create a well-thought rebuttal to my points, and not simply ignore everything i said, and go off on a meme posting rant about Istanbul(which fell with a pro-unionist priest doing the liturgy, unlike the great tomb of Saint Peter in Rome, which simply got sacked dry by arians, arabs, and lutherans) or shoddily edited nazi maps taken off Free Republic, or whatever other marxists.org tier twisting of historical narratives i'm gonna be responded with this time.

>>582387

well buddy I don't know how you think what you said was relevant to the conversation. I hope your hatred of Catholics won't prevent you from coming to the truth. God bless you.

>>582387

Not him but how do Orthodox address theologically the loss of Constantinople to Muslims?

>>582444

>well buddy I don't know how you think what you said was relevant to the conversation.

Well, let's see:

Your argument:

>every time a crisis is over for the Catholic Church it yields great results.

>The Early church was severely pruned, and the Catholic Church just came back stronger and with more Saints

My counter-argument:

Here a ton of example off the top of my head where either:

-the crisis did not yield great results, or a flourishing afterwards, but either yielding no lasting fruit, or sapped their former glory so much they could never recover, to this day:

>Berber slave trade;

>loss of MENA provinces that were in communion with Rome;

>the almost complete extermination of assyrian rite catholics under the mongols, turks, arabs, etc. that continues to this very day;

>the supression of eastern euro greek-catholics;

Or their interference not only failed, but directly led peoples that were interested in catholicism away from the Catholic Church:

>the crusaders making every eastern christian, barring the manorites, into taking a much more anti-roman stance regarding the schism;

>Clement XI annoying the chinese emperor so much he threw them out of China, and made them hate catholic philosophy;

>bishop Irish mistreating american greek-catholics;

And i could go on.

>I hope your hatred of Catholics

What i hate is people cherrypicking and bending history to force a simplistic and false narrative.

I don't care if it's catholics, orthodox, protestants, socialists, fascists, whites, blacks, etc. that do it.

Catholicism is cool.

>>582494

your "counterargument", which I would just describe as a guy who's mad and raving who changes the subject from Catholicism and orthodoxy to Catholics so he can bash them, presupposes the church of Christ to be filled with Saints who never commit any sins or make any error or that I implied that, which I never did. It is filled with sinners.

I don't want to argue with you because you take this very personally.

>>582513

>Catholics so he can bash them

You realise i'm the same guy that made some threads to praise cathortodox saints, pre and post schism, and do stuff like invoke Saint Peter Damian as counterproof whenever you guys get accused to child molestation as being some catholic thing that could never be fixed, right?

>presupposes the church of Christ to be filled with Saints who never commit any sins or make any error or that I implied that, which I never did. It is filled with sinners.

But their sins should end with divine providence getting the Church out of stuff like this, stronger and better than ever before.

I'm just following your logic here.

>>582240

>the pope can't be wrong

heretic

>>582329

Sorry but I listen to the Eastern Patriarchs and bishops over laity and they say that they do believe in the first among equals where that first takes the role of headship (much like how the father is the head of the trinity yet equal to the son and holy spirit or how the man is the head of the equal marital union). And they acknowledge the Bishop of Rome has this as first and head.

Thread theme

https://youtu.be/EAwWPadFsOA

>>582847

Primacy =/= supremacy. Just because the Pope gets to sit in the highest chair doesn't mean he's the of monarch of the faith.

I’m torn between the two at the moment, I like the scholasticism of the Catholic Church (Aquinas Feser etc) but pretty much am orthodox in every other respect, what should I do?

>>583426

Scolasticism is perfectly legitimate, it’s just the autistic anti-Catholic polemic in the mold of Romanides where the West is the arch-heresiarch and any doctrines, Church Fathers and practices associated (rightly or wrongly) with it are anathema to the pure Byzantine Tradition. Not really the prevailing thought in most of Orthodoxy but zeal of the convert + pre-existing anti-Catholic prejudice means it’s overrepresented in the West.

>>581306

I'd like to add a couple of differences I don't see discussed in this thread, ones that seem a bit obvious, actually. It seems like some on this board find Orthodoxy and Catholicism closer than they actually are. Disclaimer: I belong to neither church.

>Original Sin

Orthodox reject the common Western notion of original sin, in that the Orthodox believe the guilt is not inherited. This view of original sin the Orthodox believe is an invention of St. Augustine. Rather, they say that the inheritance from Adam's sin is rather its consequences: death. This is seen with a common phrase among Orthodox, that is that Jesus "trampled down death by death." More correctly, this is called ancestral sin, though many Orthodox will use the term original sin anyway. This is also one of the reasons they don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, as >>581313 points out. Since Mary did not inherit the guilt of Adam, she did not need to be protected from it. Additionally, the Immaculate Conception has the result that Mary COULD NOT have sinned, which Orthodox do not believe. The majority opinion is that she chose not to sin, while some believe she may have sinned at least once, after Jesus's birth, and was cleansed at Pentacost.

>Soteriology

The orthodox view on justification and soteriology is also different from the Roman Catholic conception. Strictly speaking, the language of mortal sins and venial sins is not in Orthodoxy. While the doctrine is held by some, others reject it, citing that it is important to view all sin as serious, lest we don't ask for forgiveness for it. Even those who DO speak about the mortal and venial distinction typically name less mortal sins than would Catholics. For example, a Catholic would view missing Mass on a Sunday to be a mortal sin, while most Orthodox would not. Justification in Orthodoxy is often described as "faith alone, but not faith that is alone." The faith should lead to theosis, and this theosis and partaking of the divine nature is what saves us.

>What happens to the soul after death

As has been stated in this thread, Orthodox do not believe in purgatory. However, what happens to the soul after death is not officially defined by the church. The prevailing theory iis that the righteous are given a foretaste of heaven, while the wicked are given a foretaste of hell. There is also the infamous toll houses theory that is held by a select few. Interestingly, some Orthodox believe that heaven and hell, rather than being separate places, are simply separate states before God. That is, the righteous experience the presence of God as heaven, and the wicked as hell. There is also the question of where the possibility of repentance ends. Some Orthodox, especially the ones who believe in the different states, believe that such repentence is possible after death, through growth into theosis (which must necessarily be experienced by some of the righteous, too. It is not necessary to have completed theosis before death). This leads a few to somewhat universalistic tendencies, though it's definitely a minority view.

>Overall philosophy

You may have noticed that I've spoken a lot about differing opinions. This is a major point of difference. Catholics like to dogmatize things a lot more than Orthodox are comfortable with. One of the arguments they use against the Immaculate Conception is that, even if it were true, there is no connection between belief in it and salvation. The Eastern Church tends to focus more on Mysticism and how our personal experiences strengthen the Theology of the Church, and visa versa, rather than the Catholic focus on dogmatics. This is not to say that the Orthodox do not have dogma, simply that they choose to have LESS dogma, making dogma only that which is absolutely necessary for salvation.

>>582231

I Believe he is just saying to not to stir any animosity between you and your friends or neighbors trying to convert them.

Kind of funny seeing them call each other heretics when both churches entirely recognise the validity of the other.

They are schismatics to each other, legitimate priests in a legitimate church, but not heretics.

>>583447

From the Catechism:

>>404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

>>405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle

We do NOT believe in inherited guilt and you seriously have to stop to propagate this lie.

>>583067

It means precisely this. If you're the primate, you have the power. You borderline-communist mental gymnastics will not bring you further. Either someone is a primate, then he has the supremacy over everyone else, or he isn't.

You know that hierarchy is inherent to God, right ? No primate = no hierarchy. The Pope is the source of unity in the visible Church, and if you reject him - for whichever reason - you obviously reject unity of the Church "at best", and God at worst, depending on your point of view.

>>582231

Here is what I think is a plausible interpretation: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1419

He doesn't say that converting the Orthodox is wrong (what he calls wrong ia "proselytism", which has a narrower meaning), rather he says to leave theological questions to qualified people, and for individuals to be good examples of virtue, charity to the Orthodox.

>>583447

I can't find real differences between Orthodox and Catholic views on original sin tbh. Augustine and Anselm titled the balance in a certain way that obviously influenced medieval Catholic theology but this was centuries ago, the balance has been re-settled since then.

You say that we "don't believe" in the Immaculate Conception, which isn't entirely right. We don't believe that it is a dogma. But it is a perfectly legitimate theologoumenon, and one that has history in the Byzantine tradition (incidentally, this history is mainly post-schism).

>Justification in Orthodoxy is often described as "faith alone, but not faith that is alone."

What the fuck is this? Where do you get your information from?

Although it is true that we're disturbed by the language of "merits."

>However, what happens to the soul after death is not officially defined by the church. The prevailing theory iis that the righteous are given a foretaste of heaven, while the wicked are given a foretaste of hell.

This is wrong. St Mark of Ephesus defended the official dogma of the Orthodox Church regarding what happens to the soul prior to the final judgment, when faced with the Catholic notion of Purgatory. This dogma did not change.

As for the rest of your comment regarding what the Orthodox do or do not believe about the soul after death, you seem to be really confused. Toll house theory isn't held by just "a select few." The divide between those who see Heaven and Hell as spiritual states and those who see them as real distinct places is also in Catholicisim, and similarly, the divide between those who see them as two real distinct things and those who see them as the same thing (the experience of the infinite God) colored by one's receptivity is also present in Catholicism.

>making dogma only that which is absolutely necessary for salvation

Dogma is, by definition, that which is absolutely necessary to believe for salvation. Catholics define it that way too. They just have their own arguments in favor of papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, etc. that we think are weird and stupid.

>>584761

Heretics can have validity of sacraments, though.

Besides, quite a few (as in, at least 1/3rd of) Orthodox bishops would argue that Catholics do not have validity anyway.

>>584786

It's not "family infighting," since we are not in the same family. There is no episcopal communion at all today.

>>584842

Sometimes I wonder how Anastasios Bibliothecarius would've dealt with this schism, and whose side he would have picked if he were teleported into the 21st century.

>>584852

"Catholic" does not mean "universal"

REEEE

THIS IS NOT HOW YOU DEFINE "Catholic"

The Church is "Catholic" because it is found in its fullness at the local level. It is Catholic because "where two or three are gathered" in His name, Christ is there.