THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM
BesikiNews
CATHOLICISM?
By Father Michael Azkoul
St. Catherine Mission, St. Louis, MO
Copyright, 1994 St. Nectarios American Orthodox Church
Reproduced with permission from The Orthodox Christian Witness, Vol.
XXVII (48), Vol. XXVIII (6) and (8), 1994.
May not be reproduced without permission
This question has been asked many times. Most Orthodox, in attempting to
distinguish between Orthodoxy and
Roman Catholicism, usually mention the Pope or Purgatory, sometimes the
filioque. Historically, the differences,
however, are far more numerous and quite profound.
Also, in modern times, since Vatican II of thirty years ago, that major,
if not tragic attempt, to "update" Roman
Catholicism (e.g., the revision of canon law), the differences between
Orthodoxy and the followers of the Pope
have widened.
In our present discussion, however, the concern will be those
differences which have grown since Orthodoxy and
Roman Catholicism separated almost a thousand years ago.
1. Faith and Reason
Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to
defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman
Catholicism, she does not build on the results of philosophy and
science. The Church does not seek to reconcile
faith and reason. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science what
Christ gave His followers to believe. If
physics or biology or chemistry or philosophy lends support to the
teachings of the Church, she does not refuse
them. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by man's intellectual
accomplishments. She does not bow to them and
change the Christian Faith to make it consistent with the results of
human thought and science.
St. Basil the Great advised young monks to use Greek philosophy as a bee
uses the flower. Take only the "honey,"
---- the truth --- which God has planted in the world to prepare men for
the Coming of the Lord.
For example, the Greeks had a doctrine of the Logos. The Gospel of John
opens, "In the beginning was the Word
(Logos, in Greek). For the pagans, the Logos was not God, as He is for
Christians; rather he is a principle, a power or
force by which "God: formed and governs the world. The Fathers pointed
to the similarity between the Logos or
Word of the Bible and the Logos of Greek philosophy as a sign of
Providence. The difference between them, they
attributed to the sinfulness of men and the weakness of the human
intellect. They remembered the words of the
Apostle Paul, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after
the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2: 8).
Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human
reason. Its history shows the consequence of
that trust. For example, in the Latin Middle Ages, the 13th century, the
theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas,
joined "Christianity" with the philosophy of Aristotle. From that period
til now, the Latins have never wavered in
their respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the
theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian
religion.
2. The Development of Doctrine
The Orthodox Church does not endorse the view that the teachings of
Christ have changed from time to time;
rather that Christianity has remained unaltered from the moment that the
Lord delivered the Faith to the Apostles
(Matt. 28: 18-20). She affirms that "the faith once delivered to the
saints" (Jude 3) is now what it was in the
beginning. Orthodox of the twentieth century believe precisely what was
believed by Orthodox of the first, the
fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries.
To be sure, Orthodoxy recognizes external changes (e.g., vestments of
clergy, monastic habits, new feasts, canons
of ecumenical and regional councils, etc.), but nothing has been added
or subtracted from her Faith. The external
changes have a single purpose: To express that Faith under new
circumstances. For example, the Bible and divine
Services were translated from Hebrew and Greek into the language of new
lands; or new religious customs arose to
express the ethnic sensibilities of the converted peoples, etc.;
nevertheless, their has always been "one faith, one
Lord, one baptism" (Eph. 4: 4).
The fundamental witness to the Christian Tradition is the holy
Scriptures; and the supreme expositors of the
Scriptures are the divinely inspired Fathers of the Church, whether the
Greek Fathers or Latin Fathers, Syriac Fathers
or Slavic Fathers. Their place in the Orthodox religion cannot be
challenged. Their authority cannot be superseded,
altered or ignored.
On the other hand, Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of
faith and in order to justify new doctrine,
erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal
Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians
began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original
deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and
matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the
Christian Faith as the Church moved into
new circumstances and acquired other needs.
Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in
stages, to higher and more clearly defined
levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they
are, belong to a stage or level below the
theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology
lower than the new ideas which have come
after it, such as Vatican II.
All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may
appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may
also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer.
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and
"the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary
(about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful
as necessary to their salvation.
In any case, the truth of these dogmas have always belonged to the
Christian Tradition. They have been present
from the beginning of that Tradition as "hints," seeds that only waited
for the right time to bloom.
3. God
Roman Catholicism teaches that human reason can prove that God is; and,
even infer that He is eternal, infinite,
good, bodiless, almighty, all-knowing, etc. He is "most real being,"
"true being." Humans are like Him (analogous),
but we are imperfect being. The 17th century writer, Blaise Pascal, said
it best, the God of Roman Catholicism is "the
God of philosophers and savants, not the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob."
Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that the knowledge of God
is planted in human nature and that is
how we know Him to exist. Otherwise, unless God speaks to us, human
reason cannot know more. The saving
knowledge of God comes by the Savior. Speaking to His Father, He said,
"And this is life eternal, that they might
know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou has sent"
(John 17: 3).
Roman Catholicism teaches, also, that, in the Age to Come, man will,
with his intellect and with the assistance of
grace, behold the Essence of God. The Fathers declare that it is
impossible to behold God in Himself. Not even
divine grace, will give us such power. The saved will see, however, God
as the glorified flesh of Christ.
Historically, the Roman Catholic theology never made the distinction
between God's Essence (what He is) and His
Uncreated Energies (by what means He acts). St. Gregory Palamas tried to
explain this distinction through a
comparison between God and the Sun. The sun has its rays, God has His
Energies (among them, Grace and Light). By
His Energies, God created, sustains and governs the universe. By His
Energies, He will transform the creation and
deify it, that is, He will fill the new creation with His Energies as
water fills a sponge.
Finally, Roman Catholicism teaches that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from
the Father and the Son" (filioque). In so
doing, it spurned the Apostolic Tradition which always taught that God
the Father is the single Source ("monarchy")
of the Son and the Spirit. Thus, the Latins added words to the Nicean
Creed
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds
from the Father and the Son . . .
They made this change on the authority of the Pope, in the 11th century,
not any Council of the whole Church
(Ecumenical Council).
4. Christ
Why did God become man? The Roman Catholic answer to this question
differs from the teachings of the Holy
Orthodox Church.
Following the holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that Christ, on the Cross,
gave "His life a ransom for many" (Matt.
20:28). "For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve,
and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark
10:45). The "ransom" is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the
Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14), "I will ransom
them (us) from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death."
In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil
who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb.
2:14).
The man Christ voluntarily gave Himself on the Cross. He died for all
("a ransom for many" or "the many"). But He
rose from the dead in His crucified body. Death had no power to hold
Him. It has no power over anyone. The
human race is redeemed from the grave, from the devil. Free of the devil
is to be free of death and sin. To be free
of these, we become like God (deification) and may live with Him
forever.
According to Roman Catholic theology, God became man in order to satisfy
the divine Justice which was offended
by the sin of Adam. In other words, by his sin Adam offended the
infinite God and, therefore, his sin had infinite
consequences. It was not within the power of sinful and finite man to
make amends, for the sin of Adam ("original
sin") passed to us; but it is our obligation to do so. Only Christ, Who
was God and man, could pay this "debt of
honor."
He pays the debt by dying on the Cross. His death makes up for what Adam
had done; the offense is removed. God
is no longer angry with man. Christ rises from the dead, the promise or
"earnest" of the believing man's future. For a
long time, the Latins, whether among ordinary Catholics or
intellectuals, little attention was given to the idea of
deification. Not much attention was devoted to the concepts necessary to
understanding this doctrine.
Roman Catholic theology is customarily legalistic and philosophical. For
example, a "valid" (legal term) baptism into
Christ is the result of the right intention (having the same
understanding of baptism as the Church) and using the
correct formula or words during the ceremony or rite. Thus, even an
atheist, under certain conditions, could baptize
a person. "Sprinkling" of water (effusion) over the head of the baptized
is reasonable and sufficient.
Lately, some Latin theologians are rethinking the Christian teaching of
salvation (soteriology). They are beginning to
take the idea of deification (baptism as the first step) very seriously.
They rightly insist that it belongs to Christian
tradition, including "St. Augustine" and other Latin Fathers. In point
of fact, a revolution in its theology is necessary
if it is to become Scriptural and patristic; if it ever hopes to achieve
the right understanding of Christ and His
salvation.
5. The Church
The Roman Catholic view of the Church (ecclesiology) differs from the
Orthodox teaching on this subject in several
ways.
The Latins teach that the visible head of the Church is the Pope, the
successor to St. Peter, who was appointed to
that sacred position by the Lord Himself with the words, "Thou art Peter
and upon this rock I shall build my Church .
. . " (Matt. 16:18).
The Pope is, then, "the Bishop of the Catholic Church," her teacher, the
vicar (agent, deputy) of Christ on earth. He
is the interpreter of the Christian Tradition. When he speaks for the
whole Church (ex cathedra), the Holy Spirit does
not permit him to err. He is, therefore, infallible on matters of morals
and doctrine. Other bishops are his
lieutenants. He is the symbol of the episcopate's unity.
The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure,
there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch,
archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop.
Such differences apply to the administration
of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The
president of a synod of bishops is called
archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom).
According to Latin ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the
universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic
parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a
visible head, the Pope. This idea of the Church
implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local
bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a
monster. Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic
authority if the Pope may contradict his orders.
Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it.
Orthodoxy teaches that every bishop, "the living icon of Christ," and
his flock constitute the Church in a certain
place; or, as St. Ignatius the God-bearer says, the Church of Christ is
in the bishop, his priests and deacons, with the
people, surrounding the Eucharist in the true faith. All bishops and
their flocks so constituted, together composing
the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
In other words, there can be no Church without a bishop, no bishop
without the Eucharist, and no bishop or
Eucharist without the true faith, the Apostolic Faith, "the faith once
delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) "The Church is
in the bishop and the bishop in the Church," wrote St. Cyprian of
Carthage.
Put another way, there is no Church where there is no bishop, and there
is no bishop where there is no succession
of bishops from the Apostles (apostolic succession); and there can be no
succession from the bishops without the
faith of the Apostles.
Also, there can be no Church without the Eucharist, the Sacrament of
unity, because the Church is formed through
it. The Body and Blood of Christ unites the Faithful to God: This
fellowship or koinonia is the whole purpose of
Christianity. At the same time, there can be no Eucharist - and no other
Mysteries - without a bishop who teaches
the true faith to the baptized.
6. The Holy Canons
A canon is a "rule" or "guide" for governing The Church. Canons were
composed by the Apostles, the Fathers, the
local or regional and general or ecumenical Councils (in Latin) or
Synods (in Greek). Only the bishop, as head of the
church, applies them. He may use them "strictly" (akreveia) or
"leniently" (economia). "Strictness" is the norm.
Unlike the Latins, the Orthodox Church does not think of canons as laws,
that is, as regulating human relationships
or securing human rights; rather, Orthodoxy views canons as the means of
forging the "new man" or "new creature"
through obedience. They are training in virtue. They are meant to
produce holiness.
The Latins continue to change their canons, ignoring the old for the
new. Not more than two decades ago, Rome
revised its Canon Law. It composes new canons to keep up with the times.
On the other hand, Orthodoxy, albeit
adding canons from time to time and place to place, never discards the
old ones, for they, too, are inspired by the
Holy Spirit. In any case, human problems and spiritual needs do not
really change. New canons are generally simple
refinements of old canons.
7. The Mysteries
Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics recognize at least seven
Sacraments or Mysteries: The Eucharist,
Baptism, Chrismation, Ordination, Penance, Marriage and Holy Oil for the
sick (which the Latins have traditionally
called "Extreme Unction" and reserved for the dying).
Concerning the Sacraments in general, the Orthodox teach that their
material elements (bread, wine, water, chrism,
etc.) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit (epiklesis).
Roman Catholicism believes that the
Sacraments are effective on account of the priest who acts "in the
person of Christ."
At the same time, the Latins interpret the Sacraments in a legal and
philosophical way. Hence, in the Eucharist, using
the right material things (bread and wine) and pronouncing the correct
formula, changes their substance
(transubstantiation) into the Body and Blood of Christ. The visible
elements or this and all Sacraments are merely
"signs" of the presence of God.
The Orthodox call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper." What the priest
and the faithful consume is mysteriously the
Body and Blood of Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and
wine, because it would be wholly
repugnant to eat "real" human flesh and drink "real" human blood.
According to Roman Catholic teachings about the Sacraments (mystagogy),
a person becomes a member of the
Church through Baptism. "Original sin" is washed away. Orthodoxy teaches
the same, but the idea of an "original sin"
or "inherited guilt" (from Adam) has no part in her thinking. More will
be said later on this matter.
Roman Catholics speak of "Confirmation" and the Orthodox of
"Chrismation." "Confirmation" is separated from the
Baptism and is performed by the bishop and not the priest; but
"Chrismation" is performed with Baptism by a priest
who has received "chrism" from the bishop. The Sacrament of
"Confirmation" and "Chrismation" both mean the
giving of the Holy Spirit. The Latins delay "confirming" (with "first
communion") baptized infants not more than
seven years, that is, until the time they have some appreciation of the
gift of God.
The Orthodox Church links Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion, first
the threefold immersion into sanctified
water, the "new Christian" rising from the water into the fellowship of
the Holy Spirit which leads to union with God.
Such is the purpose of membership in the Church.
Ordination is the ceremony which, by the grace and calling of God,
elevates a man to the priesthood. The
sacerdotal priesthood has three orders: Bishop, presbyter (elder) and
deacon. All Christians are priests by virtue of
the baptism into Christ Who is priest, prophet and king - for which
reason St. Peter refers to the Church as a "royal
priesthood" (I Pet. 2:9). The bishop is the "high priest," the
"president of the Eucharist and all the Mysteries.
Presbyters and deacons are his assistants. The Latins hold that the
presbyter acts "in the person of Christ" when, in
fact, he does no more than represent the bishop who is "the living icon
of Christ."
Strictly speaking, Penance - sometimes called "Confession" - should only
be received by the believer as a means of
re-admission to the Church. For a long time, Penance, or confession of
sins, prayer and fasting was employed only
for those who had been expelled from the Church ("excommunication") or
who had voluntarily departed (apostasy).
The present practice is to receive Penance from a bishop or presbyter
for some serious sin before receiving Holy
Communion.
Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics consider Penance as a
Sacrament. Each has different customs
surrounding it, such as the confessional booth so common among the
latter.
For Roman Catholics, Holy Matrimony is a binding, ostensibly an
unbreakable, contract. The man and the woman
marry each other with the "church" (bishop or priest) standing as a
witness to it. Hence, no divorce under any
conditions - no divorce but annulment of the marriage contract if some
canonical defect in it may be found which
renders it null and void (as if it never took place).
In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or
mystical union of a man and woman - in
imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of "the whole
People of God" through her bishop or his
presbyter. Divorce is likewise forbidden, but, as a concession to human
weakness, it is allowed for adultery. Second
and third marriages are permitted - not as a legal matter - out of
mercy, a further concession to human weakness
(e.g., after the death of a spouse). This Sacrament, as all Sacraments
or Mysteries, is completed by the Eucharist, as
St. Dionysius the Areopagite says.
As already mentioned, the Latins conceive Extreme Unction as the final
Sacrament, the Sacrament which prepares
the believer for death, purgatory and the Age to Come. In Orthodoxy,
Holy Oil is received for healing. Often
sickness is caused by sin; therefore, Holy Oil or Unction involved
Confession of sins. At the end of the rite, the
anointed receives Holy Communion.
The Orthodox Church also recognizes kingship, monasticism, blessings of
the water, etc. as Mysteries.
8. The Nature of Man
Human nature was created good, even in communion with the blessed
Trinity which made "him." Male and female
were created "in the likeness and image of God" (Gen. 1:26): "likeness"
in virtue; "image" meaning to rule the earth
rationally, to act wisely and freely. The woman was made as a
"help-meet" to the man (Gen. 2:18; I Cor. 11:8-9).
They were to live together in harmony and mutual respect.
So far Roman Catholicism agrees with the Church; it differs with
Orthodoxy on the nature of man's fall and the
human condition. Following Augustine of Hippo, the Latins teach that
Adam and Eve sinned against God. The guilt
of their sin has been inherited by every man, woman and child after
them. All humanity is liable for their "original
sin."
Following the Holy Fathers, the Orthodox Church holds that when Adam
sinned against God, he introduced death to
the world. Since all men are born of the same human stock as Adam, all
men inherit death. Death means that the life
of every human being comes to an end (mortality); but also that death
generates in us the passions (anger, hate,
lust, greed, etc.), disease and aging.
Roman Catholicism has ordinarily paid little attention to the Orthodox
conception of man as slave to death through
his passions as manipulated by the devil. In fact, the devil has been
pushed to the background. Thus, the Crucifixion
has been understood by the Latins as Christ suffering punishment for the
human race ("vicarious atonement"), when,
in truth, Christ suffered and died on the Cross to conquer the devil and
destroy his power, death.
In any case, Orthodoxy has always put great stress on "mastery of the
passions" through prayer (public worship and
private devotions), fasting (self-denial) and voluntary obedience and
regular participation in the Eucharist
(sometimes called "the Mysteries"). Thus, the highest form of Christian
living ("the supreme philosophy") is
monasticism. Here all human energy is devoted to struggle for
perfection.
Monasticism, in this sense, among Roman Catholics has all but
disappeared. As a "supernatural religion" so-called, it
has become increasingly "this-worldly." Therefore, it has abandoned its
medieval heritage, and its understanding of
man, his nature and destiny has become increasingly secular.
9. The Mother of God
The doctrine of the place and person of the Virgin Mary in the Church is
called "mariology." Both Orthodoxy and
Roman Catholicism believe she is "Mother of God" (Theotokos, Deipare)
and "the Ever-Virgin Mary."
However, the Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic "dogma of the Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin Mary," which
was defined as "of the faith" by Pope Pius IX, on the 8th of December
1854. This dogma holds that from the first
instant of her conception, the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by a most
singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and
in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the human race,
preserved from all stain of Original Sin. It is a
doctrine revealed by God, and therefore to be firmly and steadfastly
believed by all the faithful (from the Bull
Ineffabilis Deus).
Such a theory has no basis in the Scriptures nor the Fathers. It
contains many ideas (such as "the merits of Christ")
likewise without apostolic foundation. The idea that the Lord and His
Saints produced more grace than necessary.
This excess may be applied to others, even those in purgatory (see
below).
But to return: the Church does not accept the idea that the Mother of
God was born with the (inherited) guilt of
Adam; no one is. She did, however, inherit the mortality which comes to
all on account of Adam's Fall.
Therefore, there is no need to do what Latin theologians have done.
There is no reason to invent a theory to
support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. There is no need to
teach that, on account of "the merits of
Christ," the Holy Spirit was able to prevent her from inheriting the
guilt of Adam.
In fact, she was born like every other human being. The Holy Spirit
prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the
Mother of God. She was filled with the Uncreated Energy of the Holy
Spirit of God in order that she might be a
worthy vessel for the birth of Christ. Nevertheless, several of the
Fathers observed that before the Resurrection of
her Son, she had sinned. St. John Chrysostom mentions the Wedding at
Cana where she presumed to instruct Him
(John 2:3-4). Here was proof of her mortality.
Receiving the Holy Spirit once more at Pentecost, she was able to die
without sin. Because of her special role in the
Divine Plan ("economy" or "dispensation"), she was taken into the
heavens, body and soul. She now sits at the foot
of her Son, making intercession for all those who implore her mercy. The
Orthodox Church honors the miracle of
her "assumption" with a feast on 15 August; likewise, the followers of
the Pope.
Both also believe in the intercessions of the Virgin Mary and all the
Saints. Such intercessions reflect the unity of the
Church in heaven and the Church on earth.
Both also believe that there is a sense in which the Mother of God is
the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ.
Those who belong to the Church are identified with Him. But He is also
our "brother" (Rom. 8:29). If Christ is our
brother, then, the Virgin Mary is our mother. But the Church is our
mother through Baptism. Therefore, the Virgin
Mary is the Church.
10. Icons
The icon is an artistic depiction of Christ, the Mother of God and the
Saints. God the Father cannot be painted,
because He has never been seen. God the Holy Spirit has appeared as a
dove and as "tongues of fire." He may be
shown in this way. God the Son became a man, and He may be painted in
His human form.
Icons are more than sacred pictures. Everything about them is
theological. For example, they are always flat, flat so
that we who inhabit the physical world will understand that the world of
the spirit where Christ, His Mother, the
angels, the saints, and the departed dwell, is a world of mystery which
cannot be penetrated by our five senses.
Customarily, Roman Catholicism has historically employed statues in its
worship. The statues are life-like and
three-dimensional. They seem to imitate the art of ancient Greece. Both
arts are naturalistic. The Latins portray
Christ, the Mother of God, the saints, even the angels, as if they were
in a state of nature. This "naturalism" stems
from the medieval idea that "grace perfects nature."
The person or persons are represented on the icon as deified. He or she
is not a perfect human being, but much
more: They are transfigured and glorified. They have a new and
grace-filled humanity.
Important to remember is the Latin theory of grace: It is created by God
for man. Orthodoxy teaches, as we recall,
that grace is uncreated, and impacts all creation. It is a mysterious
extension of the Divine Nature. Orthodox
iconography reflects this truth, even as Roman Catholic statues reflect
its idea of grace.
Again, icons are a necessary part of Orthodox piety. The Orthodox honor
and kiss icons, a devotion which passes
from the icon to the person or persons represented in them. Icons are
not idols and the Orthodox do not worship
them. Worship is reserved for God alone. The statues set up in Roman
Catholic temples are not commonly
venerated; they are visual aids and decorations.
11. Purgatory
Purgatory is a condition of the departed before the final judgment.
According to Roman Catholic theology, those
souls destined for heaven (with a few exceptions) must endure a state of
purgation, or purification. They must be
cleansed of the sins committed on earth. The rest go to hell for eternal
punishment.
Moreover, from a "treasury" of merits or extra grace accumulated by the
virtue of Christ, the Virgin Mary and the
saints, "indulgences" may be granted. The grace is applied to those in
purgatory in order to shorten their time
there.
Orthodoxy teaches that, after the soul leaves the body, it journeys to
the abode of the dead (Hades). There are
exceptions, such as the Theotokos, who was borne by the angels directly
into heaven. As for the rest, we must
remain in this condition of waiting. Because some have a prevision of
the glory to come and others foretaste their
suffering, the state of waiting is called "Particular Judgment."
When Christ returns, the soul rejoins its risen body to be judged by
Him. The "good and faithful servant" will inherit
eternal life, the unfaithful with the unbeliever will spend eternity in
hell. Their sins and their unbelief will torture
them as fire.
12. Other Differences
There are other minor differences between the Orthodox Church and Roman
Catholicism.
The Orthodox do not fast on Saturday (except Holy Saturday) or Sunday.
Roman Catholics experience no such
restriction.
Orthodox do not kneel on Sunday; Roman Catholics do. Orthodox have no
"Stations of The Cross;" Roman Catholics
do.
Orthodox presbyters and deacons may marry before ordination; Roman
Catholic clergy are celibate.
Orthodox worship towards the East; Roman Catholics, not necessarily.
In the Orthodox Liturgy, the "bread" of the Eucharist is "leavened"
(zyme); in the Roman Catholic Mass it is
"unleavened" (azyme).
The Orthodox faithful receive both the "body" and "blood of Christ" in
Holy Communion; Roman Catholics receive
only the "bread," a wafer.
There are no orders of Orthodox monks (male and female) as there is
among Roman Catholics (Jesuits, Dominicans,
Benedictines, Cistericans, etc.). More recently, many Roman Catholic
monks and nuns have put away their traditional
habits.
Orthodox clergy wear beards; Papist clergy are generally beardless.
There are many other differences, often the product of culture. Also, it
is noteworthy that many of these
differences, whether profound or not, do not apply to the contemporary
religious situation. Ecumenism has brought
great confusion, so that it is not always easy to say with any precision
what Roman Catholics believe, while so-called
Orthodox have abandoned the traditional teachings of the Church.
Lane Core Jr.
On Sat, 17 Oct 1998 10:27:32 -0400, "BesikiNews" <b.si...@mailexcite.com>
wrote the following:
>WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN
>CATHOLICISM?
>
>By Father Michael Azkoul
>
>St. Catherine Mission, St. Louis, MO
>
>Copyright, 1994 St. Nectarios American Orthodox Church
>Reproduced with permission from The Orthodox Christian Witness, Vol.
>XXVII (48), Vol. XXVIII (6) and (8), 1994.
>May not be reproduced without permission...........
Thanks.
It is good for us to be reminded now and then
that ignorant, bigoted Catholic Haters
who distort Scripture, Tradition, History, and Doctrine
because they don't know what else to do
aren't found only among the ranks of Protestants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lane Core Jr. elc...@sgi.net http://users.sgi.net/~elcore
I welcome e-mail replies. :) But I have no time for e-mail debates. :(
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally
acknowledged in the second century than that there was no formal
acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated."
(J. H. Newman, _Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_,
Part I, Ch. IV, Sec. III, Par. 4)
Cunneen
is obsessed with the differences and the RCs are not.
It's almost always an Orthodox clergyman or apologist who discourses on the
(apparently) extensive differences, piling strawmen on top of strawmen. What
it simply comes down to is the Pope and the Petrine ministry. Other than that,
we have Orthodox in union with Rome who are identical with the other Orthodox
except in that one issue, communion with Rome.
Deo Gratias
John
CHARLES
Cunneen wrote in message <19981019025650...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>The main difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is that
Orthodoxy
>is obsessed with the differences and the RCs are not.
For example, if RC are not obsessed with the difference between
the two rites, then how do you explain the following facts:
1. In 1054 who was it who came from Rome to the Church at
Constantinople and placed a writ of excommunication on the
high altar during a solemn liturgy. (Hint: it was not the EO).
2. During the Fourth Crusade who was it who invaded Constantinople and raped
the EO nuns and entered the EO Churches on
horseback and smashed so many holy icons? Who was it who on April 13, 1204
engaged in sheer barbaric massacre and pillage of the city of Constantnople?
(Hint: it was not the EO). by the way, where did the religious artifacts
that can be
seen today in St. Marks Cathedral in Venice come from? And what about the
columns, sculptures, and in particular the four gilded bronze horses above
the main portal of the RC cathedral of St. Mark's in
Venice. Why have not these been returned to the EO as the allegation is that
they were stolen as booty during the fourth crusade by the RC crusaders.
3. What is one to make of the allegation of forced conversions of Serbian EO
to RC in Croatia during WWII? Were not speeches made in Croatia saying that
1/3 of the EO Serbs would be deported to Serbia, 1/3 would be converted to
RC and 1/3 would be killed. If there is not an obsessioon on the part of RC
against EO, why then did we have these speeches ?
4. Are there not allegations that RC clergy participated in the wholesale
massacre and slaughter of Serbs during WWII? For example, who was the RC
monk Miroslav Filipovac and why is it alleged that he was one of the
commandants of the concentration camp at Jasenovac? What is one to make of
the allegations of toruture, starvation, poisoning, and beatings of EO Serbs
at this camp?
5. What happened at Glina Yugoslavia on August 21, 1941 in the EO Church?
How many people were killed in the Church and why were they killed? What is
one to make of the allegations of forced conversion to RC ? If RC are not
obssessed witht he differences between EO and RC then why are there
allegations of forced conversions of EO to RC in Croatia during WWII?
>It's almost always an Orthodox clergyman or apologist who discourses on the
>(apparently) extensive differences, piling strawmen on top of strawmen.
massacre of the fourth Crusade is a strawman? Who were the Greeks hurting at
this time to deserve such a vicious and barbaric attack? How can you call
these allegations a strawman? Does this not show either ignorance of the
historical facts or a cruel indifference to the horrible fate of innocent
EO?
What
>it simply comes down to is the Pope and the Petrine ministry. Other than
that,
>we have Orthodox in union with Rome who are identical with the other
Orthodox
>except in that one issue, communion with Rome.
every respect identical to the EO Churches. For example, in the USA, Eastern
rite clergy are not allowed to marry. Also the fasting laws during lent are
sometimes different, as is the law for fasting before receiving Communion. I
think there are other differences for example in the approac to annulments
of marriages and divorce.
>Deo Gratias
Deo Gratias? If you look at the history of Croatia and Serbia, it appears
that they are the same stock of people and have the same language. The only
major difference appears to be that one embraced the Eastern rite, and the
other embraced the latin rite. Why then is there the allegation that the RC
community was obsessed with the forced conversion of the EO to RC?
Charles
>John
JCo9405234
>Date: Sat, Oct 17, 1998 15:33 EDT
>Message-id: <3628f0ce...@news.sgi.net>
wrote:
>Thanks.
>It is good for us to be reminded now and then
>that ignorant, bigoted Catholic Haters
>who distort Scripture, Tradition, History, and Doctrine
>because they don't know what else to do
>aren't found only among the ranks
>of Protestants.
What a load of dogshit. The original post was a fairly accurate, if somewhat
simplistic, account of the differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy,
written from an obviously Orthodox point of view. You dont have to agree with
it, and I didnt on several points, (I was going to respond to it, but my server
yanked it). but there was nothing bigoted, blatantly false, or hate-mongering
in it. You are no better than the gay radicals who scream about bigotry and
"homophobia" every time someone expresses moral concerns over homosexuality;
i.e. youre nothing but a partisan fanatic who has long since lost interest in
the truth.
JCo (a Roman Catholic)
JCo9405234
cun...@aol.com (Cunneen)
>Date: Mon, Oct 19, 1998 02:56 EDT
>Message-id: <19981019025650...@ng-fi1.aol.com>
wrote:
>The main difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is that Orthodoxy
>is obsessed with the differences and the RCs are not.
>
>It's almost always an Orthodox clergyman or apologist who discourses on the
>(apparently) extensive differences, piling strawmen on top of strawmen.
>piling strawmen on top of strawmen. What
>it simply comes down to is the Pope and the Petrine ministry. Other than
>that,
>we have Orthodox in union with Rome who are identical with the other Orthodox
>except in that one issue, communion with Rome.
Were you not able to read those parts of the post dealing with differences over
the filioque, original sin, the Immaculatley Conception, etc.?
JCo
tz...@my-dejanews.com
"CHARLES" <CHAR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> I didn't realise that this was the main difference between EO and RC.
In general it is. Typically the RC refers to the EO as our brothers
in schism. The EO typically refers to the RC as being in heresy.
> For example, if RC are not obsessed with the difference between
> the two rites, then how do you explain the following facts:
> 1. In 1054 who was it who came from Rome to the Church at
> Constantinople and placed a writ of excommunication on the
> high altar during a solemn liturgy. (Hint: it was not the EO).
The EO responded very quickly thereafter. The whole affair is
interesting, only because it points out that two stubborn people
can always behave stubbornly. On a theological level, there
really wasn't anything on either side.
from <http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/eastorth.htm>
The Norman conquest of southern Italy touched off the Great
Schism, the final tear in the fabric of Christendom. When the
Catholic Normans took over the Byzantine-Rite Greek colonies
in southern Italy, they compelled the Greek communities there
to adopt the Latin Rite custom of using unleavened bread for
the Eucharist. This caused great aggravation among the Greek
Catholics because it went against their ancient custom of
using leavened bread.
In response, Patriarch Cerularius ordered all of the
Latin-Rite communities in Constantinople to conform to the
Eastern practice of using leavened bread. You can imagine
the uproar that ensued. The Latins refused, so the patriarch
closed their churches and sent a hostile letter to Pope Leo IX.
What followed next was almost a comedy of errors. In an
attempt to quell the disturbance, the Pope sent a three-man
delegation, led by Cardinal Humbert, to visit Patriarch
Cerularius. But things grew worse instead of better. The legates
presented the patriarch with the pope's reply to his charges.
Both sides managed to infuriate each another over diplomatic
courtesies, and when the smoke cleared a serious rift had
developed between the pope and the patriarch of Constantinople.
This was not, however, the actual break between the two
communions. It's a popular myth that the schism dates to the year
1054 and that the pope and the patriarch excommunicated each other
at that time, but they did not.
Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware (aka Timothy Ware) writes:
"The choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he
and Cerularius were men of stiff and intransigent temper . . .
After [an initial, unfriendly encounter] the patriarch refused
to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually Humbert
lost patience, and laid a Bull of Excommunication against
Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom . . .
Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert
(but not the Roman Church as such)" (The Orthodox Church, 67).
The New Catholic Encyclopedia says that, "The consummation of
the schism is generally dated from the year 1054, when
this unfortunate sequence of events took place. This
conclusion, however, is not correct, because in the bull
composed by Humbert, only Patriarch Cerularius was
excommunicated. The validity of the bull is questioned because
Pope Leo IX was already dead at that time. On the other side,
the Byzantine synod excommunicated only the legates and abstained
from any attack on the Pope or the Latin Church."
(These mutual excommunications of the individuals involved
were revoked in 1965 by the pope and the Byzantine patriarch.)
<end quote>
To this day, the eastern rites of the Roman Catholic Church use
leavened bread. The Filioque was not an issue in 1054.
> 2. During the Fourth Crusade who was it who invaded Constantinople and raped
> the EO nuns and entered the EO Churches on
> horseback and smashed so many holy icons? Who was it who on April 13, 1204
> engaged in sheer barbaric massacre and pillage of the city of Constantnople?
I don't see what this has to do with the question. Are you implying that
since Idiots engaged in work for the Roman Catholic Church acted in brutal
ways that the Roman Catholic Church as an institution believes that the
Eastern Orthodox are heretics and not schimnatics?
The same arguments apply to 3, 4 and 5.
| _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr|
| /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040|
| / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
| |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
CHARLES
>To this day, the eastern rites of the Roman Catholic Church use
>leavened bread. The Filioque was not an issue in 1054.
>
>> 2. During the Fourth Crusade who was it who invaded Constantinople and
raped
>> the EO nuns and entered the EO Churches on
>> horseback and smashed so many holy icons? Who was it who on April 13,
1204
>> engaged in sheer barbaric massacre and pillage of the city of
Constantnople?
>
>I don't see what this has to do with the question.
>I don't see what this has to do with the question.
Why in the fourth Crusade did RC steal artifacts from EO Churches in
Constantinople,
and flaunt them publicly
for hundreds of years as they do even today in St. Mark's Cathedral in
Venice?
Is it OK to keep stolen goods and proudly display them in a RC Church?
What crime in 1204 did the Greeks of Constantiople commit except that they
used leavened
bread in their liturgy? The Crusaders came from the West to massacre them
and to plunder
and pillage the city and their Churches only because they used leavened
bread?
Why during WWII in Croatia did RC make speeches saying they will forcibly
convert
1/3 of EO Serbs, forcibly return 1/3 of EO Serbs to Serbia, and kill the
remaining 1/3?
Why were certain EO Serbs who did not convert to RC during WWII either
dragged into a
concentration camp at Jasenovac to be tortured, beaten and in some cases
killed,
or dragged into their EO
Churches to be axed to death in the Church as for example in Glina,
Yugoslavia
in August , 1941? The allegation is that there were RC priests and religious
in Croatia who
assisted in this roundup of EO Serbs during WWII and who were in charge of
the
activities at Jasenovac. See the article in the Encyclopedia Brittanica on
Fascism, 15th
editon, 1980, Macropedia, vol.7, p. 186: "The Ustase persecuted and killed
many thousands of Orthodox Serbs, Jews and Muslims. Catholic monks and
other
priests are alleged to have taken an active part in this struggle..."
Why didn't Cardinal Humbert and the papal legates leave the EO Greeks alone
in 1054? Why did he go to Constantinople and lay down a bull of
excommunication at the high altar of the Hagia Sophia on July 16, 1054. Is
it not
rude to interrupt a service at the
Hagia Sophia simply because you do not like the use of leavened
bread during the liturgy? I don;t see where the EO went to Rome to
interrupt the service of the Latins to protest the Latin innovations.
In view of these historical facts, i don;t see how one could deny that there
is a certain opposition on the part of RC to EO.
CHARLES
>To this day, the eastern rites of the Roman Catholic Church use
>leavened bread. The Filioque was not an issue in 1054.
>
>> 2. During the Fourth Crusade who was it who invaded Constantinople and
raped
>> the EO nuns and entered the EO Churches on
>> horseback and smashed so many holy icons? Who was it who on April 13,
1204
>> engaged in sheer barbaric massacre and pillage of the city of
Constantnople?
>
>I don't see what this has to do with the question
tz...@my-dejanews.com
"CHARLES" <CHAR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Here are the questions:
> Why in the fourth Crusade did RC steal artifacts from EO Churches in
> Constantinople,
> and flaunt them publicly
> for hundreds of years as they do even today in St. Mark's Cathedral in
> Venice?
Because they (crusaders) were, just like their orthodox bretheren
SINNERS. But if you want to talk fourth Crusade ... let's do so.
Catholic Enyclopedia article at:
<http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/04543c.htm#V>
In the many attempts made to
establish the Christian states the
efforts of the crusaders had been
directed solely toward the object
for which the Holy War had been
instituted; the crusade against Constantinople shows the first
deviation from the original purpose. For those who strove to
gain their ends by taking the direction of the crusades out of the
pope's hands, this new movement was, of course, a triumph,
but for Christendom it was a source of perplexity. Scarcely had
Innocent III been elected pope, in January, 1198, when he
inaugurated a policy in the East which he was to follow
throughout his pontificate. He subordinated all else to the
recapture of Jerusalem and the reconquest of the Holy Land. In
his first Encyclicals he summoned all Christians to join the
crusade and even negotiated with Alexius III, the Byzantine
emperor, trying to persuade him to re-enter the Roman
communion and use his troops for the liberation of Palestine.
Peter of Capua, the papal legate, brought about a truce
between Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur de Lion, January,
1199, and popular preachers, among others the parish priest
Foulques of Neuilly, attracted large crowds. During a
tournament at Ecry-sur-Aisne, 28 November, 1199, Count
Thibaud de Champagne and a great many knights took the
cross; in southern Germany, Martin, Abbot of Pairis, near
Colmar, won many to the crusade. It would seem, however,
that, from the outset, the pope lost control of this enterprise.
Without even consulting Innocent III, the French knights, who
had elected Thibaud de Champagne as their leader, decided to
attack the Mohammedans in Egypt and in March, 1201,
concluded with the Republic of Venice a contract for the
transportation of troops on the Mediterranean. On the death of
Thibaud the crusaders chose as his successor Boniface,
Marquis of Montferrat, and cousin of Philip of Swabia, then in
open conflict with the pope. Just at this time the son of Isaac
Angelus, the dethroned Emperor of Constantinople, sought
refuge in the West and asked Innocent III and his own
brother-in-law, Philip of Swabia, to reinstate him on the imperial
throne. The question has been raised whether it was
pre-arranged between Philip and Boniface of Montferrat to turn
the crusade towards Constantinople, and a passage in the
"Gesta Innocentii" (83, in P. L., CCXIV, CXXXII) indicates
that the idea was not new to Boniface of Montferrat when, in
the spring of 1202, he made it known to the pope. Meanwhile
the crusaders assembled at Venice could not pay the amount
called for by their contract, so, by way of exchange, the
Venetians suggested that they help recover the city of Zara in
Dalmatia. The knights accepted the proposal, and, after a few
days' siege, the city capitulated, November, 1202. But it was in
vain that Innocent III urged the crusaders to set out for
Palestine. Having obtained absolution for the capture of Zara,
and despite the opposition of Simon of Montfort and a part of
the army, on 24 May, 1203, the leaders ordered a march on
Constantinople. They had concluded with Alexius, the
Byzantine pretender, a treaty whereby he promised to have the
Greeks return to the Roman communion, give the crusaders
200,000 marks, and participate in the Holy War. On 23 June
the crusaders' fleet appeared before Constantinople; on 7 July
they took possession of a suburb of Galata and forced their
way into the Golden Horn; on 17 July they simultaneously
attacked the sea walls and land walls of the Blachernć. The
troops of Alexius III made an unsuccessful sally, and the
usurper fled, whereupon Isaac Angelus was released from
prison and permitted to share the imperial dignity with his son,
AlexiusIV. But even had the latter been sincere he would have
been powerless to keep the promises made to the crusaders.
After some months of tedious waiting, those of their number
cantoned at Galata lost patience with the Greeks, who not only
refused to live up to their agreement, but likewise treated them
with open hostility. On 5 February, 1204, Alexius IV and Isaac
Angelus were deposed by a revolution, and Alexius Murzuphla,
a usurper, undertook the defence of Constantinople against the
Latin crusaders who were preparing to besiege Constantinople
a second time. By a treaty concluded in March, 1204, between
the Venetians and the crusading chiefs, it was pre-arranged to
share the spoils of the Greek Empire. On 12 April, 1204,
Constantinople was carried by storm, and the next day the
ruthless plundering of its churches and palaces was begun. The
masterpieces of antiquity, piled up in public places and in the
Hippodrome, were utterly destroyed. Clerics and knights, in
their eagerness to acquire famous and priceless relies, took part
in the sack of the churches. The Venetians received half the
booty; the portion of each crusader was determined according
to his rank of baron, knight, or bailiff, and most of the churches
of the West were enriched with ornaments stripped from those
of Constantinople. On 9 May, 1204, an electoral college,
formed of prominent crusaders and Venetians, assembled to
elect an emperor. Dandolo, Doge of Venice, refused the
honour, and Boniface of Montferrat was not considered. In the
end, Baldwin, Count of Flanders, was elected and solemnly
crowned in St. Sophia. Constantinople and the empire were
divided among the emperor, the Venetians, and the chief
crusaders; the Marquis of Montferrat received Thessalonica
and Macedonia, with the title of king; Henry of Flanders
became Lord of Adramyttion; Louis of Blois was made Duke
of Nicća, and fiefs were bestowed upon six hundred knights.
Meanwhile, the Venetians reserved to themselves the ports of
Thrace, the Peloponnesus, and the islands. Thomas Morosini, a
Venetian priest, was elected patriarch.
At the news of these most extraordinary events, in which he had
had no hand, Innocent III bowed as in submission to the
designs of Providence and, in the interests of Christendom,
determined to make the best of the new conquest. His chief aim
was to suppress the Greek schism and to place the forces of the
new Latin Empire at the service of the crusade. Unfortunately,
the Latin Empire of Constantinople was in too precarious a
condition to furnish any material support to the papal policy.
The emperor was unable to impose his authority upon the
barons. At Nicća, not far from Constantinople, the former
Byzantine Government gathered the remnant of its authority and
its followers. Theodore Lascaris was proclaimed emperor. In
Europe, Joannitsa, Tsar of the Wallachians and Bulgarians,
invaded Thrace and destroyed the army of the crusaders before
Adrianople, 14 April, 1205. During the battle the Emperor
Baldwin fell. His brother and successor, Henry of Flanders,
devoted his reign (1206-16) to interminable conflicts with the
Bulgarians, the Lombards of Thessalonica, and the Greeks of
Asia Minor. Nevertheless, he succeeded in strengthening the
Latin conquest, forming an alliance with the Bulgarians, and
establishing his authority even over the feudatories of Morea
(Parliament of Ravennika, 1209); however, far from leading a
crusade into Palestine, he had to solicit Western help, and was
obliged to sign treaties with Theodore Lascaris and even with
the Sultan of Iconium. The Greeks were not reconciled to the
Church of Rome; most of their bishops abandoned their sees
and took refuge at Nicća, leaving their churches to the Latin
bishops named to replace them. Greek convents were replaced
by Cistercian monasteries, commanderies of Templars and
Hospitallers, and chapters of canons. With a few exceptions,
however, the native population remained hostile and looked
upon the Latin conquerors as foreigners. Having failed in all his
attempts to induce the barons of the Latin Empire to undertake
an expedition against Palestine, and understanding at last the
cause of failure of the crusade in 1204, Innocent III resolved
(1207) to organize a new crusade and to take no further notice
of Constantinople. Circumstances, however, were
unfavourable. Instead of concentrating the forces of
Christendom against the Mohammedans, the pope himself
disbanded them by proclaiming (1209) a crusade against the
Albigenses in the south of France, and against the Almohades of
Spain (1213), the pagans of Prussia, and John Lackland of
England. At the same time there occurred outbursts of mystical
emotion similar to those which had preceded the first crusade.
In 1212 a young shepherd of Vendôme and a youth from
Cologne gathered thousands of children whom they proposed
to lead to the conquest of Palestine. The movement spread
through France and Italy. This "Children's Crusade" at length
reached Brindisi, where merchants sold a number of the
children as slaves to the Moors, while nearly all the rest died of
hunger and exhaustion. In 1213 Innocent III had a crusade
preached throughout Europe and sent Cardinal Pelagius to the
East to effect, if possible, the return of the Greeks to the fold of
Roman unity. On 25 July, 1215, Frederick II, after his victory
over Otto of Brunswick, took the cross at the tomb of
Charlemagne at Aachen. On 11 November, 1215, Innocent III
opened the Fourth Lateran Council with an exhortation to all the
faithful to join the crusade, the departure being set for 1217. At
the time of his death (1216) Pope Innocent felt that a great
movement had been started.
<end>
> Is it OK to keep stolen goods and proudly display them in a RC Church?
No. Of course who owns what can be an interesting course of politics.
Most of the Lutheran Churches in Northern Europe used to belong to the
RC Church. Is it ok for them to keep their stolen goods (churches) or
should they be returned to the RC Church?
> What crime in 1204 did the Greeks of Constantiople commit except that they
> used leavened
> bread in their liturgy? The Crusaders came from the West to massacre them
> and to plunder
> and pillage the city and their Churches only because they used leavened
> bread?
There was no crime. But the crusaders were more looking for fast cash
than for enforcement of the western tradition over the eastern one.
It is often forgotten that before the schism, eastern churches were
in Italy and western churches were in Greece. Normans forced the
greek churches in Italy to adopt the western tradition in the 11th
century, leading to the famous confrontation between Patriarch
Cerularius, and legate Humbert.
> Why during WWII in Croatia did RC make speeches saying they will forcibly
> convert
> 1/3 of EO Serbs, forcibly return 1/3 of EO Serbs to Serbia, and kill the
> remaining 1/3?
> Why were certain EO Serbs who did not convert to RC during WWII either
> dragged into a
> concentration camp at Jasenovac to be tortured, beaten and in some cases
> killed,
> or dragged into their EO
> Churches to be axed to death in the Church as for example in Glina,
> Yugoslavia
> in August , 1941? The allegation is that there were RC priests and religious
> in Croatia who
> assisted in this roundup of EO Serbs during WWII and who were in charge of
> the
> activities at Jasenovac. See the article in the Encyclopedia Brittanica on
> Fascism, 15th
> editon, 1980, Macropedia, vol.7, p. 186: "The Ustase persecuted and killed
> many thousands of Orthodox Serbs, Jews and Muslims. Catholic monks and
> other
> priests are alleged to have taken an active part in this struggle..."
Once again, we are all sinners. To assume that the Eastern Orthodox
are completely spotless throughout their history would be the height
of ignorance. Members of the Church are still sinners and can still
sin.
> Why didn't Cardinal Humbert and the papal legates leave the EO Greeks alone
> in 1054? Why did he go to Constantinople and lay down a bull of
> excommunication at the high altar of the Hagia Sophia on July 16, 1054.
Well it started this way. Normans moving into Italy ordered the
greek churches in Italy to use unleavened bread. (Why? Because
they were NORMANS.) This resulted in the Patriarch ordering the
latin churches in his area to use unleavened bread. The Pope,
(who is not guarenteed in the selection of representatives) choose
Humbert of Silva-Candida as his representative. Then he died.
Now it turned out that Humbert and Cerularius didn't get along
very well. Humbert was by all accounts an obnoxious rude arrogant
man. They argued, and he threw down the bull. (Literally since
the Pope he represented was dead at the time.)
> Is
> it not
> rude to interrupt a service at the
> Hagia Sophia simply because you do not like the use of leavened
> bread during the liturgy? I don;t see where the EO went to Rome to
> interrupt the service of the Latins to protest the Latin innovations.
I have never heard anything where he actually laid the bull down
during the Divine Liturgy. If this is so, then my oppinion of him
cannot be expressed in a civil forum such as this one.
> In view of these historical facts, i don;t see how one could deny that there
> is a certain opposition on the part of RC to EO.
But there isn't. Compare the differences between the documents of
the Roman Catholic Church on the Eastern Orthodox, and the documents
of the Eastern Orthodox on the Roman Catholic Church. The former
always talks about schism, the latter heresy. Go to the Eastern
Orthodox groups and you will notice they believe they are not allowed
by Church canon to even pray with Roman Catholics, since Roman Catholics
are "heretics" even though no offical council has ever defined us as
such. The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of the EO's
orders, many of the Eastern Orthodox do not recognize the validity
of the Roman Catholic orders, as they view us in heresy.
CHARLES
tz...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <70niph$ut$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <70m5uk$cc3m$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> "CHARLES" <CHAR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>> Here are the questions:
>> Why in the fourth Crusade did RC steal artifacts from EO Churches in
>> Constantinople,
>> and flaunt them publicly
>> for hundreds of years as they do even today in St. Mark's Cathedral in
>> Venice?
to forcibly convert
EO to RC, (in spite of written documents of the RCC that this is not to be
tolerated)?
How can one reasonably expect the EO to trust the written documents of the
RCC, when
the historical situation is that they have been targets of forcible
conversion to the
use of unleavened bread, the targets of massacre and plunder by RC, and when
their
most precious artifacts are stolen from them by RC and then displayed
publicly
both inside and out of the RCC of St. Mark's in Venice? Should not these
artifacts be
returned to the EO?
Your analogy with Lutheran Churches is flawed because the Lutherans did not
go to
Rome and steal from the Vatican and then flaunt these artifacts in their
Churches. It was a
different case of the local people in a Church who had changed their
religion from RC to
Lutheran. Anyway this is a question on Protestantism, not the subject of
the
heading of this post.
From your post:
"By a treaty concluded in March, 1204, between
the Venetians and the crusading chiefs, it was pre-arranged to
share the spoils of the Greek Empire. On 12 April, 1204,
Constantinople was carried by storm, and the next day the
ruthless plundering of its churches and palaces was begun. The
masterpieces of antiquity, piled up in public places and in the
Hippodrome, were utterly destroyed. Clerics and knights, in
their eagerness to acquire famous and priceless relies, took part
in the sack of the churches. The Venetians received half the
booty; the portion of each crusader was determined according
to his rank of baron, knight, or bailiff, and most of the churches
of the West were enriched with ornaments stripped from those
of Constantinople. "
had no hand, Innocent III bowed as in submission to the
designs of Providence and, in the interests of Christendom,
determined to make the best of the new conquest. His chief aim
was to suppress the Greek schism and to place the forces of the
new Latin Empire at the service of the crusade. "
greek churches in Italy to adopt the western tradition in the 11th
century, leading to the famous confrontation between Patriarch
Cerularius, and legate Humbert."
greek churches in Italy to use unleavened bread. "
the Roman Catholic Church on the Eastern Orthodox, and the documents
of the Eastern Orthodox on the Roman Catholic Church. The former
always talks about schism, the latter heresy. "
of the Hagia Sophia by the papal legates from Rome enumerated seven mortal
heresies of the Greek Church? Is the RCC consistent in its official
treatmentof the EO?
Are there any cases where the EO have gone to Rome and stolen priceless
masterpieces to be brought back and put in their EO Churches at home?
Charles
JOH...@webtv.net
confusing.
You Want to know a Major difference between the Orthodox and Catholics?
By what I see in this NG and their own NG ,the Orthodox are stuck in the
11 th Century.
They have never tried to solidify the Orthodox church or update it in
any way.
Everything seems to end in the 11 th century and everyting is based on
befor the eleventh century.
Regards
John