Theological differences have been expounded upon by many between the Holy Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic church, I seek to give examples of the difference in actual practice of day to day life between the two.
And no matter what you point out, Catholicism has devolved so much into relativism that Catholics will say “you’re misrepresenting us.” May God have mercy on us all.
All protestants say they follow Christ alone. All protestants also follow some man's traditions, they just either don't notice they are doing it, or don't acknowledge they are doing it. Christ said upon this rock I build my church. It is very easy for the RC to say that all RCs follow Christ as he said it was the rock of Peter that he built his church upon. The Orthodox most certainly have their national allegiance, and cannot deny that they follow the traditions of their nations. There just doesn't seem to be a good argument against the primacy of Peter when it was Christ who said he was the foundation of His Church. My point being, I feel I follow Christ alone myself. Do you really follow what Christ teaches?
Also, even if a second marriage in an Orthodox church is a solemn, rather than a joyful affair, how can it be anything other than adultery if the former spouse is still alive?
Then do you think Jesus condones adultery when He gives exception for divorce “except for immorality” in Matthew 19? The Roman Catholic position is much worse in annulments, you can’t ever know if your marriage you’re in is real or not, because it could be completely voided at any moment. All of Roman Catholicism has just become subjective relativistic theology, you have the option to believe completely contradicting belief and practices like infant communion and it’s “all good as long as you’re with the Pope.”
Are you sure you are actually following Christ? Would He say it’s optional to give Himself to some and not others (infants)? Is Christ divided? This is why people are fleeing Roman Catholicism, they realize it’s false and subjective. And all the pop apologetics like you are repeating from Michael Lofton are easily dismissible.
I think your interpretation of Matthew 19 is flawed. So many marriages could end in divorce due to immorality, but that seems permissive of sin rather than encouraging sanctity. I agree with what you say about annulment being too permissive in the RCC, but that seems to also support the idea that divorce in the Orthodox church is too permissive, both are too permissive. But, that is why we need an earthly authority figure, so that we aren't reduced to pitting our opinions against each other. I also agree with giving communion and confirmation to infants, but I am at the mercy of my bishops, because I choose to be obedient to my proper authority figure. I understand that my bishop insists upon giving the sacraments to older children because he is trying to keep them in the church for as long as possible. He is a postVat2 bishop who is trying to solve a problem the wrong way. I think giving the sacraments to the infants and returning to the Traditional Rites would encourage people to come to mass, but I am not in charge. I think the Orthodox are right about some things, but are ultimately in schism, and consequently outside the Church. I am not trying to be pop apologetic; it is true I am limited in my understanding of the issues. My apologies for lowering the level of the discussion.
Some points make sense, but I cannot agree with the take on divorce vs annulment. It’s best to recognize that if one person did not intend to comply with the marriage vows, it means they weren’t valid. Divorce doesn’t solve anything because it’s a contradiction. I like your points about the wine in the Eucharist, and children receiving communion, though.
That being said, you are completely wrong about the true authority of the pope. In the Catechism, Christ is the head of the Church, and the pope is only an authority of the Church on earth. His authority is not boundless.
Yes, the author is wrong. You, author, definitely misrepresented more than one Roman Catholic belief there. Christ is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance. The Pope is His Vicar on earth, but he is not an ultimate authority. I am perfectly within my rights as an RC to go to my local TLM even though my Pope is against it. I think you should study more, but thank you for your interesting article.
Every Roman Catholic says what you do, “you misrepresent us.” I don’t think you are familiar with your own councils. If the Pope decides to ban the Latin mass and under pain of excommunication forbid anyone from attending, he has the right to do as Papal authority is granted even to the rites themselves according to Vatican 1. Yes your marker of unity on earth is the Pope, while ours is Christ in the Eucharist. That’s the point.
I’m guessing for your first question you’re referring to Moscow-Constantinople schism. If you think this is a knock against the Orthodox Church, how do you reconcile Rome being in schism with Antioch during the Second Ecumenical Council?
For the second question same original response, because Christ is the marker of unity, not the Pope.
It’s a canonical body, only ROCOR and Antioch have WR. ROCOR WR is well established and usually has no issues, Antioch WR is the one people complain about sometimes.
“Your arguments are invalid and premises untrue” *doesn’t explain how*
Keep reiterating the words “poor, misleading, false” without saying anything of substance.
Catholics are taught to not proselytize, so why are you even commenting? You’re promoting Catholicism in your response which is definitionally a form of proselytizing, even if it be a softer form.
“It would be nice if Orthodox followed Roman Catholic practice.” Okay but we don’t. We are different, hence the article, and your response.
Scott, I’m not surprised a Roman Catholic would take issue with this article. The article was respectful in my disagreements even if you disagree with my assessments themselves. However, your response is not. You calling us schismatic doesn’t bode well for a fruitful discussion from the outset, nor does it offer anything substantial in response except “you’re wrong.” May God bless you and please forgive my offense.
You may address me as “Father” or not at all. You presume to use a person’s name when you hide behind anonymity? That is pathetic and cowardly.
Submit to the Pope or you will be damned. You might not like the truth but then most don’t. One does not waste time discussing the lies you promote. Again, submit to Rome.
Priesthood isn’t a career, and “Father” isn’t a title. This kind of attitude from clergy is EXACTLY why we’re having droves of your parishioners join Orthodox Catholicism. You’re supposed to be the servant of all, but you insist (much like your pope) on making all your servants. May God help you.
Oof. You ain't wrong.
And no matter what you point out, Catholicism has devolved so much into relativism that Catholics will say “you’re misrepresenting us.” May God have mercy on us all.
All protestants say they follow Christ alone. All protestants also follow some man's traditions, they just either don't notice they are doing it, or don't acknowledge they are doing it. Christ said upon this rock I build my church. It is very easy for the RC to say that all RCs follow Christ as he said it was the rock of Peter that he built his church upon. The Orthodox most certainly have their national allegiance, and cannot deny that they follow the traditions of their nations. There just doesn't seem to be a good argument against the primacy of Peter when it was Christ who said he was the foundation of His Church. My point being, I feel I follow Christ alone myself. Do you really follow what Christ teaches?
Also, even if a second marriage in an Orthodox church is a solemn, rather than a joyful affair, how can it be anything other than adultery if the former spouse is still alive?
Then do you think Jesus condones adultery when He gives exception for divorce “except for immorality” in Matthew 19? The Roman Catholic position is much worse in annulments, you can’t ever know if your marriage you’re in is real or not, because it could be completely voided at any moment. All of Roman Catholicism has just become subjective relativistic theology, you have the option to believe completely contradicting belief and practices like infant communion and it’s “all good as long as you’re with the Pope.”
Are you sure you are actually following Christ? Would He say it’s optional to give Himself to some and not others (infants)? Is Christ divided? This is why people are fleeing Roman Catholicism, they realize it’s false and subjective. And all the pop apologetics like you are repeating from Michael Lofton are easily dismissible.
I think your interpretation of Matthew 19 is flawed. So many marriages could end in divorce due to immorality, but that seems permissive of sin rather than encouraging sanctity. I agree with what you say about annulment being too permissive in the RCC, but that seems to also support the idea that divorce in the Orthodox church is too permissive, both are too permissive. But, that is why we need an earthly authority figure, so that we aren't reduced to pitting our opinions against each other. I also agree with giving communion and confirmation to infants, but I am at the mercy of my bishops, because I choose to be obedient to my proper authority figure. I understand that my bishop insists upon giving the sacraments to older children because he is trying to keep them in the church for as long as possible. He is a postVat2 bishop who is trying to solve a problem the wrong way. I think giving the sacraments to the infants and returning to the Traditional Rites would encourage people to come to mass, but I am not in charge. I think the Orthodox are right about some things, but are ultimately in schism, and consequently outside the Church. I am not trying to be pop apologetic; it is true I am limited in my understanding of the issues. My apologies for lowering the level of the discussion.
Some points make sense, but I cannot agree with the take on divorce vs annulment. It’s best to recognize that if one person did not intend to comply with the marriage vows, it means they weren’t valid. Divorce doesn’t solve anything because it’s a contradiction. I like your points about the wine in the Eucharist, and children receiving communion, though.
That being said, you are completely wrong about the true authority of the pope. In the Catechism, Christ is the head of the Church, and the pope is only an authority of the Church on earth. His authority is not boundless.
Yes, the author is wrong. You, author, definitely misrepresented more than one Roman Catholic belief there. Christ is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance. The Pope is His Vicar on earth, but he is not an ultimate authority. I am perfectly within my rights as an RC to go to my local TLM even though my Pope is against it. I think you should study more, but thank you for your interesting article.
Every Roman Catholic says what you do, “you misrepresent us.” I don’t think you are familiar with your own councils. If the Pope decides to ban the Latin mass and under pain of excommunication forbid anyone from attending, he has the right to do as Papal authority is granted even to the rites themselves according to Vatican 1. Yes your marker of unity on earth is the Pope, while ours is Christ in the Eucharist. That’s the point.
No. The pope’s authority is limited. I don’t know where you’re getting your information from but you’re incorrect.
Than why aren't the Orthodox churches united? And why aren't we united as RC and Orthodox?
I’m guessing for your first question you’re referring to Moscow-Constantinople schism. If you think this is a knock against the Orthodox Church, how do you reconcile Rome being in schism with Antioch during the Second Ecumenical Council?
For the second question same original response, because Christ is the marker of unity, not the Pope.
I left Orthodoxy and became Catholic.....dont regret it at all.
How does your diocese interact with the orthodox western rite (if at all?)
It’s a canonical body, only ROCOR and Antioch have WR. ROCOR WR is well established and usually has no issues, Antioch WR is the one people complain about sometimes.
“Your arguments are invalid and premises untrue” *doesn’t explain how*
Keep reiterating the words “poor, misleading, false” without saying anything of substance.
Catholics are taught to not proselytize, so why are you even commenting? You’re promoting Catholicism in your response which is definitionally a form of proselytizing, even if it be a softer form.
“It would be nice if Orthodox followed Roman Catholic practice.” Okay but we don’t. We are different, hence the article, and your response.
Scott, I’m not surprised a Roman Catholic would take issue with this article. The article was respectful in my disagreements even if you disagree with my assessments themselves. However, your response is not. You calling us schismatic doesn’t bode well for a fruitful discussion from the outset, nor does it offer anything substantial in response except “you’re wrong.” May God bless you and please forgive my offense.
You may address me as “Father” or not at all. You presume to use a person’s name when you hide behind anonymity? That is pathetic and cowardly.
Submit to the Pope or you will be damned. You might not like the truth but then most don’t. One does not waste time discussing the lies you promote. Again, submit to Rome.
Priesthood isn’t a career, and “Father” isn’t a title. This kind of attitude from clergy is EXACTLY why we’re having droves of your parishioners join Orthodox Catholicism. You’re supposed to be the servant of all, but you insist (much like your pope) on making all your servants. May God help you.
WOW. More than anything, this confirms that I made the right choice in becoming Orthodox rather than Catholic.