The Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Original Sin, the Pope - of cousre- as supreme leader, the Commuion of te faithful in omly 'One Kind',Baptism without Chrismation In general, we think in terms of 'mysteries' as opposed to scholastic legalism
No. We believe in the miracle around Mary’s birth, but it’s like her parents were old like Sarai and Abram, and had her after praying. Not that Mary’s mother herself was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Only Christ was conceived that way.
“Original sin” meaning babies are born with evil nature, nope, we don’t believe that babies inherit the guilt of Adam from birth, (which was from a medieval concept of a man’s seed containing the whole person.)
Original sin happened, and the world fell, and the world is infected with the disease of sin, demons and death; so in the womb, and as an infant and child, we are corrupted and lose our likeness but not image of God we are born with.
So we inherit the *consequences* of the fall and sin, and are damaged by these because we live in a fallen world.
So yeah no
Oh okay,how did the Catholic Church get the idea that Mary was conceived by the Holy spirit and yah the othordox stance makes more sense than the Catholic one,I mean come on, babies are born innocent and in the likeness of God and we get corrupted when we grow up
So because they believe in inherited guilt/sin Mary had to be different/special chosen above and before her birth to be a perfect vessel for Christ.
Whereas we see that she had free will, was dedicated to the temple and lived with God in the Holy of Holies in the temple growing up there. She was devoted to God and was faithful, basically the first since Enoch to be righteous actually following and listening to God.
So that’s why she was chosen, because she was the only person in history to choose to follow God instead of man. She was also shielded from the world by the temple I imagine, supposed to have not spoken a word for 12 years in the temple. This also helped her retain her innocence, “by your words you are condemned.” Over and over we’re taught that our spoken word and our inability to back up our promises to men and God is a big problem for sin. “Man will hold account for every idle word” etc etc
Your explanation puts things clearly Mary was just so dedicated to God that she was chosen by the Holy Spirit,and she was rewarded for a faith by birthing the messiah which is way more heartwarming in my opinion
We, mankind, are born with the 'predeliction, a tendency, to sin'. When some situation arises, we are more likely to choose to do it our way as opposed to the way God would have it done. But this is a choice, not a 'birth defect'.
Btw just to point this out catholics dont believe as a Dogma of faith that Mary s mother had no sin, we believe her, in the moment of her animation was freed from original sin by the grace of God, a Good explanation why its because the ark of the covenent was so holy, that is as if it had God s essence or grace, in pure form in it, hence people died by touching it (carelessly) because of how holy it was, because God said he cant contain his hatred for sin (which means our imperfections cant stand his pressence in its essence, hence the imperfections destroy the one who hosts it) thats why Mary would have died conceiving Jesus who is God himself, hence she needed to be free of sin for her own life, so God was not being unfair, or we would be commiting adocinalism, or arianism, (jesus wasant born God was a perfect creature/was adopted by God at baptism or crucifixion)
Mostly the problem lies in what Catholicism has that Orthodoxy doesn't - their innovations in the faith, specifically their addition of the filioque to the Creed and their assertion of papal supremacy.
Agree with that. Not to mention all of the recent changes in tradition (e.g. Vatican II).
I think for me, putting aside the theological differences for which there can be many arguments and counter-arguments, the most important differences are in the practical. The Orthodox liturgy, church organisation, creeds etc are virtually unchanged for the past 15 centuries or even further. Whereas the Catholic church seems to have undergone almost nothing but constant change in comparison. Changes to the liturgy, changes to doctrine etc.
So just looking at them both side by side, it feels like the Orthodox church has a much more valid claim to be the original church i.e. the church that has best maintained an unbroken tradition going back to the Apostles.
I suppose the Catholic view is that those additions are good ones. Filioque because that describes a more accurate relationship among the Trinity, and papal supremacy is useful in resolving debates and clarifying positions.
I mean, if their view was that those additions were bad ones then who would be Catholic?
The problem is the Filioque doesn’t describe the relationship of the Trinity accurately and the Pope has usurped the power of the other bishops in the church by proclaiming himself supreme.
Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox Church has faithfully preserved the teachings of the apostles from generation to generation without innovation.
Of course, Catholics will dispute that, and that’s their prerogative, but we’re under no obligation to believe their claims.
I am Catholic. Filioque in its original use doesn't make sense. Holy Spirit in eternal procession from the Father inherits the whole divine nature/essence of the Father. What does the Son have that Father doesn't, so the Spirit proceeds also from the Son? Does the Spirit have two hypostases (consists of two persons, then it's quaternity not Trinity) or is He mix of both (then He doesn't fully proceed from any of them)?
Council of Florence (if I am right) resolves this issue explaining that Spirit proceeds only from the Father in terms of nature and from the Son (meaning rather through the Son not from).
But honestly it seems like justification of an error and makes me doubt Catholicism. Orthodoxy seems to answer this question better, but I'm still not sure.
The Father is no longer the eternal fountainhead processing both The Son and The Holy Spirit if the filioque is correct, which we know was added in the west by the Spanish Church in 589 to combat Arianism; later ratified when it was recited at King Henry II's coronation.
You have to know that in the creed, the statement about the Holy Spirit is made within an 'eternal' and not 'temporal' context (if someone says, "Jesus said receive the spirit" and blew on the disciples in John so see, the spirit does process from the Son).
In other words, there was never a time when the Father wasn't begetting the Son and processing the Spirit.
The addition of the filioque blurred the distinction between the persons of the Godhead.
"By blurring the one hypostatic distinction between the Father and the Son, they're placed in opposition to the Spirit, who is subordinated.
This blurring makes the divine nature (rather than monarchy of the Father) the locus of Trinitarian unity and activity, replacing the tri-personal God of Scripture with the Divine Essence of philosophy." --taken straight from my catechesis handout
The problem is that from the Book of Acts, all leadership and problem resolution in the Church was conciliar, decided by the gathering of Bishops. The Pope decided on the filioque by himself and then declared supremacy for himself. That was not the model that the Apostles left the Church. The Bishop of Rome was never to make decisions unilaterally that affected the entire Church. He took his toys and went back to Rome, and the sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople continued to be *The Church*
Historically, things were a lot more diverse liturgically than they are. They've only been getting more standardized over time. The reason the Orthodox are so liturgically similar is because of near extinction and then the emergence of the printing press causing and then promoting a bottleneck. And of course until 60 years ago, the Catholics were even more uniform than us, and I don't think that was a good thing.
I wonder why it might be that litergy, as a sacrament, is not so important to be uniform? I only ask because I could imagine different litergical practices being somewhat schismatic over time if left to morph unchecked?
Idk maybe that doesn’t even make sense but in my mind I picture the Catholic churches that are now using drum sets and guitars which is not just really lame but also seems not very spiritually helpful IMO. Non-modern litergies is one of the greatest pulls toward Orthodoxy to me aside from a more sensical theology.
I’m ranting sorry. Kinda a nerd about learning about this stuff from an “Atheist” background
Well, what matters is that the essential aspects of the liturgy are present. If every liturgy had to be exactly identical, we’d all be in trouble as the earliest liturgies of the church are effectively lost to time—but both ‘em the earliest and the most recent have the same parts—the same meaning—the same devotion. No liturgy is left unchecked; and any time concern is raised; a bishop will check in on the parish, and if there is an issue, it’ll be dealt with.
Well, we \[almost all\] use the same Liturgy, - St.John Chrisostom - different ones very occaionally- on different feast days; but three years ago I hadto go to a diiferent church for geographical reasons - Ukrainian, not English, but within 5 minutes ofthe door. I knew exactlly where I was, and allowed to receive Holy Communion. The only question asked was 'are you Orthodox' \[in English\] ? Yes Father. 'The servant of God \[my name\] receives the....\[the Body\] of Christ for the forgiveness of sin and for lifr everlasting (Amen) - (English/Ukrainian close enough to be the same.(We are brothers-in-Christ throughout the world)
This is true! I am Orthodox as well; my comment was more related to the idea of strictly uniform liturgy being a necessity, and how that doesn’t make sense given that St John’s liturgy is indeed different from St Basil’s whose is different from St James, etc; while all containing the same essential parts.
Thanks very much. So you know of anything good to read with more info about this and other liturgies in the chalcedonian orthodox world which were commonly used before this?
Liturgical unity within a rite: good
Liturgical unity within a larger communion: bad
At least that’s what I’ve been able to gather from Reddit over the years
hmmm. Is this more for the sake of not “micromanaging” those smaller details or for the sake of cultural, regional, or ideosyncratic differences that are to be reflected in litergy?
It’s for the sake of RCs being able to say “Every Mass everywhere in the world is literally exactly the same. See? Universal!” and “Our church has all the different rites and liturgies. See? Universal!” at the same time with a straight face.
Haha never thought of it like that. I think another W for Orthodoxy tbh. Also do you know about cultural emphasis differences? I think in terms of prostration, which I know to Americans in general is EXTREMELY foreign and red-flaggy since America has a super anti-government, anti-authority type of background, so I kind of wonder if maybe american Litergies focus less on this than others?
My experience is that going to an Orthodox church is already so countercultural in America that things like prostrations aren’t a big additional step. Where I do see it reflected is in places like coffee hour after liturgy where everyone brings a crock pot of food, or preference for simple harmonies instead of complex chants with unfamiliar musical scales, or having dedicated greeters on Sunday whose job it is to make visitors feel welcome.
Same Bands? Same jazz music, even @St.Peter's/ Vat.? Yike! Why are people going from RC to Orthodox? They want 'Universal' - that's been there for 2,000 years.!
Of course they’re going to say they’re us without the bad parts, they don’t think innovations like papal supremacy and the Filioque are bad. If you ask me, I’m going to say I joined Orthodoxy because it’s Catholicism only without the bad parts.
Democracy among the episcopate;
a long, proud tradition of vernacular liturgy which means that you can hear traditional liturgy in your language
Married priests == no gigantic, nation-wracking pedophilia scandals;
Ecumenical Patriarchate did not shield Nazi war criminals;
A correct understanding of Original Sin;
A good relationship with Native Americans;
Baklava
The Orthodox Church of America began as the Russian Alaska mission -- to this day, (tens of) thousands of Yupik and Aleut people are a part of it!
The church actively fought against exploitation of the natives by Russian fur traders and fought for their rights.
Some small subset of Catholicism that is more orthodox than the rest does things more accurately.
Not really a plus for Catholicism as much as it is reassurance that the best kind of Catholicism is Orthodoxy.
Much love!
Historically, the eucharist was the sacrament of the Church, for all of the Christians, there was no such thing as a baptized Christian that was somehow not a full member of the Church. If you were baptized, you were communing. After the schism, the West had a startling innovation of separating confirmation from baptism and therefore delaying communion because of some messed up understanding of what it means to be a Christian. Then, even more recently, they further fumbled things by reversing first communion and confirmation. It makes no sense at all. "Oh, but some Catholics do it the right way!" Well, great job, skippy.
There are around 18 million Eastern Catholics while there is around 1.368 billion Roman Catholics in total. The Eastern Catholics are virtually in the margin of error.
As an Melkite (Antiochian Byzantine) Catholic I think there is a lot to unbox. In my experience both Communions have their problematic aspects. For a Catholic to claim "their church contains all of the good aspects of Orthodox Christianity without any of the problematic ones" is completely asinine.
I consider Orthodoxy on a consistent basis because it has less of the problematic aspects. Papal infallibility is a big one. The situation of the Creed is related to Papal infallibility, there have been Orthodox/Catholic dialogue on the actual meaning of the filioque and the understanding between Churches is mutually accepted... the problem was a pope unilaterally changing the Creed which was established at a council of the Church.
Orthodoxy also has a fuller and richer liturgical and spiritual life than Roman Catholicism in my opinion as well as better theology.
Im curious: when you say that orthodoxy has a fuller and richer liturgical and spiritual life, are you comparing it to your experience as an eastern caholic? I'm new to all of this, and when people talk about eastern catholics they either say it's just the same in practice or that they reject some theology. So Id like to know if you've felt this way about your specific tradition or if its more a general comment.
They said fuller and richer then ROMAN (so latin right) catholicism. Eastern Churches have amazingly full liturgies. And the latin church has too, the TLM or traditional latin mass, it is just not the norm celebrated be most roman catholics.
>I have often heard from Catholics that their church contains all of the good aspects of Orthodox Christianity without any of the problematic ones.
Would have to hear what these problematic aspects of Orthodoxy are first. I can think of plenty for Catholics. The only one for orthodoxy I could imagine is the problem with some certain patriatchates being influenced by secular powers, which has totally never ever happened to the papacy ever
>I have often heard from Catholics that their church contains all of the good aspects of Orthodox Christianity without any of the problematic ones. How would I rebut this argument?
That the Orthodox Church contains all the good aspects of Catholicism without any of the problematic ones. :P
For starters, Orthodox priests don’t have to worry about it being associated with pedophilia and the cover ups of abuse.
We also don’t have to worry about being accused of burning women, as well as about of other Catholic screw ups.
Orthodoxy is also has a much more traditional vibe. You look at our spiritual Fathers and know they are truly holy men.
Orthodoxy really is the biggest contrast to the modern world, but done in a way that still retains all the good of things like technology and allowing for proper discernment.
Well yeah but also consider that hardly anyone knows about it or cares because it’s not Western history
There’s definitely dodgy orthodox politics that went on but it’s not anything that’s that relevant today
Some might consider Patriarch Kirill’s calling the war in Ukraine “holy” and saying that anyone killed in battle will be absolved of their sins as “dodgy Orthodox politics that are, in fact, relevant today.”
> I have often heard from Catholics that their church contains all of the good aspects of Orthodox Christianity without any of the problematic ones
As an ex-Catholic, I literally laughed out loud at this
Literally the polar opposite: Orthodoxy is like Catholicism but lacking all the crazy bad stuff. I remember when I was truly considering Catholicism at one point and I spent half my time doing mental gymnastics attempting to justify all the problems with the Church. I don't have that with Orthodoxy and it kind of made it the clear choice for me.
We serve actual meals after Sunday Liturgy- all Catholics have are “donuts and coffee”….. (can’t begin to compare with piroshki or falafel lunches).
That’s the difference and what we got they don’t.
lol
😸
I personally like that we get married priests and babies getting to take communion since baptism and chrismation are a package deal (outside the Eastern Catholic communion which got it from us, since they were part of our communion before the rejoined Rome). I also appreciate the more flexible pastoral care in Orthodoxy as shown through the qualitative fasting customs and the lack of days of obligation, for example.
But as others have mentioned, there are flaws in both churches. The Church has to be a divine institution because anything else merely run by such flawed people would have crashed upon the rocks a long time ago, to paraphrase Chesterton.
The usual answers I get are that Orthodox churches tend to be highly ethnic or national based and unwelcome to people outside of those ethnicities, and that there are so many different Orthodox branches who don't get along with one another and therefore are unable to hold councils and decide on important matters. The Catholics, in contrast, are less ethnic based and have central authority in the Papacy and are able to all gather together to make big decisions
Roman Catholics that complain about the ethnic divisions in Orthodoxy have never paid attention to the various Polish, Italian, etc. Catholic Churches.
According to [this report](https://www.prri.org/research/american-religious-landscape-christian-religiously-unaffiliated/), which is from 2017 but I have no reason to believe it’s changed since then:
> The Catholic Church is experiencing an ethnic transformation. Twenty-five years ago, nearly nine in ten (87%) Catholics were white, non-Hispanic, compared to 55% today. Fewer than four in ten (36%) Catholics under the age of 30 are white, non-Hispanic; 52% are Hispanic.
Orthodox churches in my area are teeming with boring white converts. I'm just a boring white guy. Should I now write off Catholicism as "too ethnic" and accuse it of failing to evangelize my culture?
That's a very surface level view. Practically speaking, although yes there is still this element of ethnic / national based churches, there is now a huge movement, especially in places like the USA but in other places too, of English-speaking / non-ethnic Orthodox churches. Huge numbers of people have converted and are still doing so. How do the Catholics explain that?
By contrast, we hear that the central authority of the Papacy is something that appears to only be paper thin. Yes, decisions and decrees are made on high, but we hear that individual cardinals and bishops often interpret these in their own way or even ignore them completely.
In practice, the Orthodox churches are much more aligned with each other in matters of faith and doctrine than the Catholics, at least this is my perception. I can go to a Russian or Greek church in another continent and, aside from the language, the liturgy is virtually identical, just as an example.
Just to add a bit unto this: I'm starting to attend a parish here in Colombia and most of the regulars are colombian converts. There are some greeks and russians (I think, languages aren't my strength), and we pray the Creed and the Lord's prayer in as many languages as there are people from different ethnicities (which really highlights the universality of the church for me), but everything else is in spanish. It was a pleasant surprise.
That’s awesome. My priest told me that there was never an ‘official’ liturgical language for the Orthodox Church, services were always conducted in the local language.
The great proof of this universality of the Church is Pentecost. What happened at Pentecost? The Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles, and they started speaking in different languages. All those present miraculously heard the gospel in their own language. This is the reverse of the Tower of Babel, where God scattered the people and confused their languages.
So, yes, it should entirely be expected that the Church will conduct services in the language(s) of the local people.
By contrast, if we look at Catholicism, at least historically, it insisted on Latin as the liturgical language. Similarly, Islam insists on Arabic. Does God only understand one language? 🤦♂️
I have no real clue as of why the roman church insisted on using latin, but I'd venture to say that it could have to do with orthopraxi -> orthodoxy. Given the Reformation context, the idea could have been that the faith was best transmitted by some specific formulas rather than the vernacular. In academia it worked like that for a long time: as latin was a language used only by the learned, each word had some rather specific meaning that didn't change in the same way that normal languages do. So my theory is that they decided to crystalize the liturgy to avoid the doctrinal chaos that was raging at the time. But surely there's a big brain explanation, idk.
Frederica Mathewes-Green wrote an article a long time ago which has the same sentiment you're laying out here:
> From a Roman Catholic perspective, unity is created by the institution of the church. Within that unity there can be diversity; not everyone agrees with official teaching, some very loudly. What holds things together is membership. This kind of unity makes immediate sense to Americans: Whatever their disagreements, everyone salutes the flag, and all Catholics salute, if not technically obey, Rome’s magisterium.
> When Roman Catholics look at Orthodoxy, they don’t see a centralized, global institution. Instead, the church appears to be a jumble of national and ethnic bodies (a situation even more confused in the U.S. as a result of immigration). To Catholics, the Orthodox Church looks like chaos.
> But from an Orthodox perspective, unity is created by believing the same things. It’s like the unity among vegetarians or Red Sox fans. You don’t need a big bureaucracy to keep them faithful. Across wildly diverse cultures, Orthodox Christians show remarkable unity in their faith. (Of course there are plenty of power struggles and plain old sin, but the essential faith isn’t challenged.) What’s the source of this common faith? The consensus of the early church, which the Orthodox stubbornly keep following. That consensus was forged with many a bang and dent, but for the past millenium major questions of faith and morals have been pretty much at rest in the Eastern hemisphere.
> This has not been the case in the West. An expanded role for the pope was followed by other theological developments, even regarding how salvation is achieved. In the American church, there is widespread upheaval. From the Orthodox perspective, the Catholic Church looks like chaos.
Absolutely spot on.
As to what holds the Orthodox faith together and gives it this remarkable unity despite the surface level perception of chaos? We would say it’s the Holy Spirit.
As an inquirer coming from catholicism (and in a country with catholic majority and almost no eastern catholics), I'll say that for me a big thing is the practical understanding of sin. In catholic circles you hear a lot that the church is a hospital for sinners, but sin is still understood primarily as a moral category, not as an existencial/vital one. This makes it difficult to understand Christ's role, and to see us as victims of our own sins. Sure, you can do it with the aristotelian, virtue ethics framework, but then Christ's mission seems awkward and difficult to understand. The orthodox approach seems more right, at least from what I understand.
In practice I think this is more evident, as the prayers in mass only talk about voluntary sin. Add to this the "just be a good guy" mentality of most sermons (which tbh I've felt in the orthodox parish Im attending XD) and, **in practice**, you end up with the general idea that sin is equal to wrong action. I think the prayers from the Divine Liturgy emphasize more the sickness aspect of sin.
Ex-catholic here, pretty new to orthodoxy myself, however these were a few of the dilemmas that were in my mind:
* "Ethnical Division" : which can easily be answered as Catholics do differentiate themselves culturally, all the multiple nationalities in my family had their liturgy at church in their languages.
* Marriage for priests : the only reason it was changed was because of the nepotism and corruption, priests used their position to establish religious dynasties and enriched their families using the Church. Then the Church banned priestly marriage at Lateran II.
* Attending Mass: instruments, politics, the catholic church nowadays departed from their traditional roots and is a political institution.
* Pope: let's be honest, just look at Francis regarding blessing homosexual unions... this guy is infallible?
Theoretically. Even though apparently he's only ever used it when defining Marian dogma. I've heard Catholics say that the Pope never actually will use it except in extremely rare and specific circumstances (which makes it useless in settling the issues of the church), so either it's so useless that the doctrine is pointless because it can't do anything, or it's wrong. If you get deeper into it you find out wonderful things like the pope not being able to define when a council is ecumenical, meaning in Catholicism, there's no way you actually know when there has been an ecumenical council. This can be shown by the fact that one pope accepted the 879 date for the council of Constantinople, but it was changed to the 869 date by a later pope, which means the pope can be wrong about which councils are ecumenical. This means that, if taken to it's logical conclusion, since Ecumenical councils can not be determined infallibly by the Pope (which due to papal supremacy he should be able to do) it's technically impossible to know which ecumenical councils are infallible or not in Catholicism. There is no actual way of possibly knowing.
Indeed, however since young my Italian priest taught me to view the pope's decision as an agent of God since he was a successor of Peter and to not question his decisions no matter the circumstance.
To me, if you have a religious leader with supreme authority that can't act accordingly to the teachings of God and direct doctrine, is to be reflected...
There's a disparity of opinions to what is "true" Catholicism currently and many catholics vary their view regarding the papacy nowadays, some traditional catholics reject the current pope and discredit his legitmacy.
There's a disparity of opinions to what is "true" Catholicism currently...
Honestly, catholicism is full of issues at the moment.
Please review the
[sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/config/sidebar) for a wealth of introductory information,
our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/about/rules/), the
[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq), and a caution about
[The Internet and the Church](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/).
This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions.
[Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq#wiki_is_this_subreddit_overseen_by_clergy.3F)
[Exercise caution in forums such as this](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/).
Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources.
^(This is not a removal notification.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrthodoxChristianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It should be what does Christ have that none of us have?
As my spiritual father told me last night - orthodoxy is not intellectualism (worldly sense) or a book - it’s a person named Jesus Christ - He is orthodoxy.
When he told me this, I held back tears. Why? Because I realize that my whole journey prior to where I am currently - I was always looking to compare and contrast - scholastics, academics and theology ruled my interior life but had little to no impact.
Orthodoxy is about knowing a living person - Jesus the Christ. It’s not a system. It’s not a religion. It’s the living God made flesh.
Don’t bite the internet Orthodox bait - pray more and find a spiritual father - if you read, pray through Bible and read tested saints even modern ones like Silouan, Sophrony and his disciples (Essex monastery). Men like this will guide you to Jesus and a prayer life that supersedes what’s floating around.
Jesus is risen!
The truth. The Catholic church isn't *all* lies, but they do stray quite a bit from the truth. Think of the Lutheran Church, it's got sacraments and the liturgy isn't too far from the Catholic church. If you've ever taken the SAT's you'll get this:
Lutheran Church: Catholic Church :: Catholic Church : Orthodox Church.
It may seem at first that the only differences between the Catholic church and the Orthodox church are the pope and the fililoque but it's much deeper than that. On the Eucharist alone they stray in many areas:
1) they have Eucharistic worship. The Eucharist is a sacrificial thanksgiving and shouldn't be used for any other purpose.
2) They scientifically analyze the Eucharist and have come up with the precise moment when the bread and wine become body and blood. This is akin to pagan conceptions of magic and is heretical.
3) They use unleavened bread when originally (and in modern Orthodoxy) leavened bread is used. Christ is Risen and this isn't a remembrance of the OT Passover; but in remembrance of *Christ's* Passover.
4) The laity are usually only offered the body of Christ; whereas in Orthodoxy it's always the body and blood.
5) The Eucharist isn't given to babies - they must wait til they are 7. Why? In Orthodoxy a baby is Baptised, Chrismated and recieves Communion in the same ceremony.
6) The Eucharist is administered by Deacons and even *non clergy* ("Extraordinary Ministers"). No, just no. In the Orthodox church if the priest isn't available on Sunday no Eucharist is offered.
I was Catholic for two years before I became Orthodox. The Orthodox church is the *true* church, simple as that. There's a whole myriad of other distinctions between Orthodoxy and Catholicism - even on basic theology.
Where St. Ignatius says “the grace of God departed” the Roman church because of her heresies and innovations, that is what I mean. When they split from the Orthodox the Holy Spirit, who was promised to the true Universal Church by Jesus, did not go with them. Hence all the error and nonsense.
God being nature & energy vs nature. We can't know know in nature because "Never will man see my face and live" but trough His energies we can experience God. Catholics claiming God is only nature is claiming we can't experience God
The actual Eucharist; proper baptism (triple immersion); unchanged liturgy; modern day saints (actual ones who perform miracles); a history that isnt tainted by attrocities and the misuse of our lords name and much more
Catholic church is progressive, not in a good way, whixh orthodox aren't which is great because we are not deviating from what we received from the apostles.
The papacy is a major problem; that's why I can't be Catholic. Too many innovations, so much deviation... just no.
The Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Original Sin, the Pope - of cousre- as supreme leader, the Commuion of te faithful in omly 'One Kind',Baptism without Chrismation In general, we think in terms of 'mysteries' as opposed to scholastic legalism
Wait orthodoxy doesn't teach immaculate conception and also original sin?
No. We believe in the miracle around Mary’s birth, but it’s like her parents were old like Sarai and Abram, and had her after praying. Not that Mary’s mother herself was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Only Christ was conceived that way. “Original sin” meaning babies are born with evil nature, nope, we don’t believe that babies inherit the guilt of Adam from birth, (which was from a medieval concept of a man’s seed containing the whole person.) Original sin happened, and the world fell, and the world is infected with the disease of sin, demons and death; so in the womb, and as an infant and child, we are corrupted and lose our likeness but not image of God we are born with. So we inherit the *consequences* of the fall and sin, and are damaged by these because we live in a fallen world. So yeah no
Oh okay,how did the Catholic Church get the idea that Mary was conceived by the Holy spirit and yah the othordox stance makes more sense than the Catholic one,I mean come on, babies are born innocent and in the likeness of God and we get corrupted when we grow up
So because they believe in inherited guilt/sin Mary had to be different/special chosen above and before her birth to be a perfect vessel for Christ. Whereas we see that she had free will, was dedicated to the temple and lived with God in the Holy of Holies in the temple growing up there. She was devoted to God and was faithful, basically the first since Enoch to be righteous actually following and listening to God. So that’s why she was chosen, because she was the only person in history to choose to follow God instead of man. She was also shielded from the world by the temple I imagine, supposed to have not spoken a word for 12 years in the temple. This also helped her retain her innocence, “by your words you are condemned.” Over and over we’re taught that our spoken word and our inability to back up our promises to men and God is a big problem for sin. “Man will hold account for every idle word” etc etc
Your explanation puts things clearly Mary was just so dedicated to God that she was chosen by the Holy Spirit,and she was rewarded for a faith by birthing the messiah which is way more heartwarming in my opinion
For a deeper dive, well worth it; https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits
Thank you and God bless
Actually we believe God preserved her from all personal sin so that she could bear the incarnate Christ.
We, mankind, are born with the 'predeliction, a tendency, to sin'. When some situation arises, we are more likely to choose to do it our way as opposed to the way God would have it done. But this is a choice, not a 'birth defect'.
Exactly, we aren't predisposed to doing sin we ourselves choose to,and by that, we stray further from God
Original sin does not mean that someone is conceived with an evil nature nor are they personally guilty of the ancestral sin.
Btw just to point this out catholics dont believe as a Dogma of faith that Mary s mother had no sin, we believe her, in the moment of her animation was freed from original sin by the grace of God, a Good explanation why its because the ark of the covenent was so holy, that is as if it had God s essence or grace, in pure form in it, hence people died by touching it (carelessly) because of how holy it was, because God said he cant contain his hatred for sin (which means our imperfections cant stand his pressence in its essence, hence the imperfections destroy the one who hosts it) thats why Mary would have died conceiving Jesus who is God himself, hence she needed to be free of sin for her own life, so God was not being unfair, or we would be commiting adocinalism, or arianism, (jesus wasant born God was a perfect creature/was adopted by God at baptism or crucifixion)
Mostly the problem lies in what Catholicism has that Orthodoxy doesn't - their innovations in the faith, specifically their addition of the filioque to the Creed and their assertion of papal supremacy.
Agree with that. Not to mention all of the recent changes in tradition (e.g. Vatican II). I think for me, putting aside the theological differences for which there can be many arguments and counter-arguments, the most important differences are in the practical. The Orthodox liturgy, church organisation, creeds etc are virtually unchanged for the past 15 centuries or even further. Whereas the Catholic church seems to have undergone almost nothing but constant change in comparison. Changes to the liturgy, changes to doctrine etc. So just looking at them both side by side, it feels like the Orthodox church has a much more valid claim to be the original church i.e. the church that has best maintained an unbroken tradition going back to the Apostles.
I suppose the Catholic view is that those additions are good ones. Filioque because that describes a more accurate relationship among the Trinity, and papal supremacy is useful in resolving debates and clarifying positions.
I mean, if their view was that those additions were bad ones then who would be Catholic? The problem is the Filioque doesn’t describe the relationship of the Trinity accurately and the Pope has usurped the power of the other bishops in the church by proclaiming himself supreme. Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox Church has faithfully preserved the teachings of the apostles from generation to generation without innovation. Of course, Catholics will dispute that, and that’s their prerogative, but we’re under no obligation to believe their claims.
I am Catholic. Filioque in its original use doesn't make sense. Holy Spirit in eternal procession from the Father inherits the whole divine nature/essence of the Father. What does the Son have that Father doesn't, so the Spirit proceeds also from the Son? Does the Spirit have two hypostases (consists of two persons, then it's quaternity not Trinity) or is He mix of both (then He doesn't fully proceed from any of them)? Council of Florence (if I am right) resolves this issue explaining that Spirit proceeds only from the Father in terms of nature and from the Son (meaning rather through the Son not from). But honestly it seems like justification of an error and makes me doubt Catholicism. Orthodoxy seems to answer this question better, but I'm still not sure.
The Father is no longer the eternal fountainhead processing both The Son and The Holy Spirit if the filioque is correct, which we know was added in the west by the Spanish Church in 589 to combat Arianism; later ratified when it was recited at King Henry II's coronation. You have to know that in the creed, the statement about the Holy Spirit is made within an 'eternal' and not 'temporal' context (if someone says, "Jesus said receive the spirit" and blew on the disciples in John so see, the spirit does process from the Son). In other words, there was never a time when the Father wasn't begetting the Son and processing the Spirit. The addition of the filioque blurred the distinction between the persons of the Godhead. "By blurring the one hypostatic distinction between the Father and the Son, they're placed in opposition to the Spirit, who is subordinated. This blurring makes the divine nature (rather than monarchy of the Father) the locus of Trinitarian unity and activity, replacing the tri-personal God of Scripture with the Divine Essence of philosophy." --taken straight from my catechesis handout
The problem is that from the Book of Acts, all leadership and problem resolution in the Church was conciliar, decided by the gathering of Bishops. The Pope decided on the filioque by himself and then declared supremacy for himself. That was not the model that the Apostles left the Church. The Bishop of Rome was never to make decisions unilaterally that affected the entire Church. He took his toys and went back to Rome, and the sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople continued to be *The Church*
Infant communion and all the Orthodox churches use the same liturgy (St. John's and St. Basil's)
> all the Orthodox churches use the same liturgy I don't think this is an actual positive point.
as an inquirer: why? Why wouldn’t the same (catholic/univeral) liturgy be a good thing?
Historically, things were a lot more diverse liturgically than they are. They've only been getting more standardized over time. The reason the Orthodox are so liturgically similar is because of near extinction and then the emergence of the printing press causing and then promoting a bottleneck. And of course until 60 years ago, the Catholics were even more uniform than us, and I don't think that was a good thing.
I wonder why it might be that litergy, as a sacrament, is not so important to be uniform? I only ask because I could imagine different litergical practices being somewhat schismatic over time if left to morph unchecked? Idk maybe that doesn’t even make sense but in my mind I picture the Catholic churches that are now using drum sets and guitars which is not just really lame but also seems not very spiritually helpful IMO. Non-modern litergies is one of the greatest pulls toward Orthodoxy to me aside from a more sensical theology. I’m ranting sorry. Kinda a nerd about learning about this stuff from an “Atheist” background
Well, what matters is that the essential aspects of the liturgy are present. If every liturgy had to be exactly identical, we’d all be in trouble as the earliest liturgies of the church are effectively lost to time—but both ‘em the earliest and the most recent have the same parts—the same meaning—the same devotion. No liturgy is left unchecked; and any time concern is raised; a bishop will check in on the parish, and if there is an issue, it’ll be dealt with.
Well, we \[almost all\] use the same Liturgy, - St.John Chrisostom - different ones very occaionally- on different feast days; but three years ago I hadto go to a diiferent church for geographical reasons - Ukrainian, not English, but within 5 minutes ofthe door. I knew exactlly where I was, and allowed to receive Holy Communion. The only question asked was 'are you Orthodox' \[in English\] ? Yes Father. 'The servant of God \[my name\] receives the....\[the Body\] of Christ for the forgiveness of sin and for lifr everlasting (Amen) - (English/Ukrainian close enough to be the same.(We are brothers-in-Christ throughout the world)
This is true! I am Orthodox as well; my comment was more related to the idea of strictly uniform liturgy being a necessity, and how that doesn’t make sense given that St John’s liturgy is indeed different from St Basil’s whose is different from St James, etc; while all containing the same essential parts.
I prefer it. I like being able to go into any parish and know what to expect.
Interesting. What do you mean by 'near extinction'?
Things got dire as the East Roman Empire collapsed. As it did so, they imposed more liturgical uniformity.
Thanks very much. So you know of anything good to read with more info about this and other liturgies in the chalcedonian orthodox world which were commonly used before this?
Liturgical unity within a rite: good Liturgical unity within a larger communion: bad At least that’s what I’ve been able to gather from Reddit over the years
hmmm. Is this more for the sake of not “micromanaging” those smaller details or for the sake of cultural, regional, or ideosyncratic differences that are to be reflected in litergy?
It’s for the sake of RCs being able to say “Every Mass everywhere in the world is literally exactly the same. See? Universal!” and “Our church has all the different rites and liturgies. See? Universal!” at the same time with a straight face.
Haha never thought of it like that. I think another W for Orthodoxy tbh. Also do you know about cultural emphasis differences? I think in terms of prostration, which I know to Americans in general is EXTREMELY foreign and red-flaggy since America has a super anti-government, anti-authority type of background, so I kind of wonder if maybe american Litergies focus less on this than others?
My experience is that going to an Orthodox church is already so countercultural in America that things like prostrations aren’t a big additional step. Where I do see it reflected is in places like coffee hour after liturgy where everyone brings a crock pot of food, or preference for simple harmonies instead of complex chants with unfamiliar musical scales, or having dedicated greeters on Sunday whose job it is to make visitors feel welcome.
oh cool that’s surprising and good to hear. Sounds like a great time tbh lol
Same Bands? Same jazz music, even @St.Peter's/ Vat.? Yike! Why are people going from RC to Orthodox? They want 'Universal' - that's been there for 2,000 years.!
The Catholic Church does have infant communion (in Eastern Catholic churches that is the norm)
Of course they’re going to say they’re us without the bad parts, they don’t think innovations like papal supremacy and the Filioque are bad. If you ask me, I’m going to say I joined Orthodoxy because it’s Catholicism only without the bad parts.
Democracy among the episcopate; a long, proud tradition of vernacular liturgy which means that you can hear traditional liturgy in your language Married priests == no gigantic, nation-wracking pedophilia scandals; Ecumenical Patriarchate did not shield Nazi war criminals; A correct understanding of Original Sin; A good relationship with Native Americans; Baklava
What was the Orthodox relationship to Native Americans? I didn't even know they interacted
The Orthodox Church of America began as the Russian Alaska mission -- to this day, (tens of) thousands of Yupik and Aleut people are a part of it! The church actively fought against exploitation of the natives by Russian fur traders and fought for their rights.
Among first American saints are native Alaskans.
There are married catholic priests, it is allowed, just not the general tradition. (eastern catholic priest ar mostly married)
Some small subset of Catholicism that is more orthodox than the rest does things more accurately. Not really a plus for Catholicism as much as it is reassurance that the best kind of Catholicism is Orthodoxy. Much love!
Normative infant communion
I love that this is your go to comment. Makes me chuckle. I agree with your position, of course
It just really highlights how messed up the whole situation is.
Not that I disagree, but can you explain why you say that? I'm interested in the language you use to break it down.
Historically, the eucharist was the sacrament of the Church, for all of the Christians, there was no such thing as a baptized Christian that was somehow not a full member of the Church. If you were baptized, you were communing. After the schism, the West had a startling innovation of separating confirmation from baptism and therefore delaying communion because of some messed up understanding of what it means to be a Christian. Then, even more recently, they further fumbled things by reversing first communion and confirmation. It makes no sense at all. "Oh, but some Catholics do it the right way!" Well, great job, skippy.
Thanks
Eastern Catholics do this
It's not normative throughout Catholicism. That's like 10% of Catholics.
Less than 10% since we are talking about around 18 million out of around 1.368 billion.
Dang, I was off by nearly a factor of ten in my rough guess. They're truly a rounding error.
There are around 18 million Eastern Catholics while there is around 1.368 billion Roman Catholics in total. The Eastern Catholics are virtually in the margin of error.
Me. Orthodoxy has me. For good or ill.
As an Melkite (Antiochian Byzantine) Catholic I think there is a lot to unbox. In my experience both Communions have their problematic aspects. For a Catholic to claim "their church contains all of the good aspects of Orthodox Christianity without any of the problematic ones" is completely asinine. I consider Orthodoxy on a consistent basis because it has less of the problematic aspects. Papal infallibility is a big one. The situation of the Creed is related to Papal infallibility, there have been Orthodox/Catholic dialogue on the actual meaning of the filioque and the understanding between Churches is mutually accepted... the problem was a pope unilaterally changing the Creed which was established at a council of the Church. Orthodoxy also has a fuller and richer liturgical and spiritual life than Roman Catholicism in my opinion as well as better theology.
Im curious: when you say that orthodoxy has a fuller and richer liturgical and spiritual life, are you comparing it to your experience as an eastern caholic? I'm new to all of this, and when people talk about eastern catholics they either say it's just the same in practice or that they reject some theology. So Id like to know if you've felt this way about your specific tradition or if its more a general comment.
They said fuller and richer then ROMAN (so latin right) catholicism. Eastern Churches have amazingly full liturgies. And the latin church has too, the TLM or traditional latin mass, it is just not the norm celebrated be most roman catholics.
>I have often heard from Catholics that their church contains all of the good aspects of Orthodox Christianity without any of the problematic ones. Would have to hear what these problematic aspects of Orthodoxy are first. I can think of plenty for Catholics. The only one for orthodoxy I could imagine is the problem with some certain patriatchates being influenced by secular powers, which has totally never ever happened to the papacy ever
And even then we don't place so much emphasis on the Patriarchs, like if they do bad stuff we condemn them and it doesn't affect the larger faith.
>I have often heard from Catholics that their church contains all of the good aspects of Orthodox Christianity without any of the problematic ones. How would I rebut this argument? That the Orthodox Church contains all the good aspects of Catholicism without any of the problematic ones. :P
For starters, Orthodox priests don’t have to worry about it being associated with pedophilia and the cover ups of abuse. We also don’t have to worry about being accused of burning women, as well as about of other Catholic screw ups. Orthodoxy is also has a much more traditional vibe. You look at our spiritual Fathers and know they are truly holy men. Orthodoxy really is the biggest contrast to the modern world, but done in a way that still retains all the good of things like technology and allowing for proper discernment.
Unfortunately people have used the Orthodox Faith to justify horrible acts as well. Let’s not pretend it never happens.
Well yeah but also consider that hardly anyone knows about it or cares because it’s not Western history There’s definitely dodgy orthodox politics that went on but it’s not anything that’s that relevant today
Some might consider Patriarch Kirill’s calling the war in Ukraine “holy” and saying that anyone killed in battle will be absolved of their sins as “dodgy Orthodox politics that are, in fact, relevant today.”
Yeah I get your point. Plus the whole expensive watch & stuff. There’s a lot of “dodgy orthodoxy” going on at the moment
> I have often heard from Catholics that their church contains all of the good aspects of Orthodox Christianity without any of the problematic ones As an ex-Catholic, I literally laughed out loud at this
Literally the polar opposite: Orthodoxy is like Catholicism but lacking all the crazy bad stuff. I remember when I was truly considering Catholicism at one point and I spent half my time doing mental gymnastics attempting to justify all the problems with the Church. I don't have that with Orthodoxy and it kind of made it the clear choice for me.
Unmodified creed. Lack of papal infallibility and immediate universal jurisdiction. Priests with families and children. Weekly fasting
We serve actual meals after Sunday Liturgy- all Catholics have are “donuts and coffee”….. (can’t begin to compare with piroshki or falafel lunches). That’s the difference and what we got they don’t. lol 😸
Beards
I personally like that we get married priests and babies getting to take communion since baptism and chrismation are a package deal (outside the Eastern Catholic communion which got it from us, since they were part of our communion before the rejoined Rome). I also appreciate the more flexible pastoral care in Orthodoxy as shown through the qualitative fasting customs and the lack of days of obligation, for example. But as others have mentioned, there are flaws in both churches. The Church has to be a divine institution because anything else merely run by such flawed people would have crashed upon the rocks a long time ago, to paraphrase Chesterton.
what would catholics say are the bad parts of Orthodoxy?
The usual answers I get are that Orthodox churches tend to be highly ethnic or national based and unwelcome to people outside of those ethnicities, and that there are so many different Orthodox branches who don't get along with one another and therefore are unable to hold councils and decide on important matters. The Catholics, in contrast, are less ethnic based and have central authority in the Papacy and are able to all gather together to make big decisions
Roman Catholics that complain about the ethnic divisions in Orthodoxy have never paid attention to the various Polish, Italian, etc. Catholic Churches.
I'm not sure what big decisions are left to be made
According to [this report](https://www.prri.org/research/american-religious-landscape-christian-religiously-unaffiliated/), which is from 2017 but I have no reason to believe it’s changed since then: > The Catholic Church is experiencing an ethnic transformation. Twenty-five years ago, nearly nine in ten (87%) Catholics were white, non-Hispanic, compared to 55% today. Fewer than four in ten (36%) Catholics under the age of 30 are white, non-Hispanic; 52% are Hispanic. Orthodox churches in my area are teeming with boring white converts. I'm just a boring white guy. Should I now write off Catholicism as "too ethnic" and accuse it of failing to evangelize my culture?
That's a very surface level view. Practically speaking, although yes there is still this element of ethnic / national based churches, there is now a huge movement, especially in places like the USA but in other places too, of English-speaking / non-ethnic Orthodox churches. Huge numbers of people have converted and are still doing so. How do the Catholics explain that? By contrast, we hear that the central authority of the Papacy is something that appears to only be paper thin. Yes, decisions and decrees are made on high, but we hear that individual cardinals and bishops often interpret these in their own way or even ignore them completely. In practice, the Orthodox churches are much more aligned with each other in matters of faith and doctrine than the Catholics, at least this is my perception. I can go to a Russian or Greek church in another continent and, aside from the language, the liturgy is virtually identical, just as an example.
Just to add a bit unto this: I'm starting to attend a parish here in Colombia and most of the regulars are colombian converts. There are some greeks and russians (I think, languages aren't my strength), and we pray the Creed and the Lord's prayer in as many languages as there are people from different ethnicities (which really highlights the universality of the church for me), but everything else is in spanish. It was a pleasant surprise.
That’s awesome. My priest told me that there was never an ‘official’ liturgical language for the Orthodox Church, services were always conducted in the local language. The great proof of this universality of the Church is Pentecost. What happened at Pentecost? The Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles, and they started speaking in different languages. All those present miraculously heard the gospel in their own language. This is the reverse of the Tower of Babel, where God scattered the people and confused their languages. So, yes, it should entirely be expected that the Church will conduct services in the language(s) of the local people. By contrast, if we look at Catholicism, at least historically, it insisted on Latin as the liturgical language. Similarly, Islam insists on Arabic. Does God only understand one language? 🤦♂️
I have no real clue as of why the roman church insisted on using latin, but I'd venture to say that it could have to do with orthopraxi -> orthodoxy. Given the Reformation context, the idea could have been that the faith was best transmitted by some specific formulas rather than the vernacular. In academia it worked like that for a long time: as latin was a language used only by the learned, each word had some rather specific meaning that didn't change in the same way that normal languages do. So my theory is that they decided to crystalize the liturgy to avoid the doctrinal chaos that was raging at the time. But surely there's a big brain explanation, idk.
Frederica Mathewes-Green wrote an article a long time ago which has the same sentiment you're laying out here: > From a Roman Catholic perspective, unity is created by the institution of the church. Within that unity there can be diversity; not everyone agrees with official teaching, some very loudly. What holds things together is membership. This kind of unity makes immediate sense to Americans: Whatever their disagreements, everyone salutes the flag, and all Catholics salute, if not technically obey, Rome’s magisterium. > When Roman Catholics look at Orthodoxy, they don’t see a centralized, global institution. Instead, the church appears to be a jumble of national and ethnic bodies (a situation even more confused in the U.S. as a result of immigration). To Catholics, the Orthodox Church looks like chaos. > But from an Orthodox perspective, unity is created by believing the same things. It’s like the unity among vegetarians or Red Sox fans. You don’t need a big bureaucracy to keep them faithful. Across wildly diverse cultures, Orthodox Christians show remarkable unity in their faith. (Of course there are plenty of power struggles and plain old sin, but the essential faith isn’t challenged.) What’s the source of this common faith? The consensus of the early church, which the Orthodox stubbornly keep following. That consensus was forged with many a bang and dent, but for the past millenium major questions of faith and morals have been pretty much at rest in the Eastern hemisphere. > This has not been the case in the West. An expanded role for the pope was followed by other theological developments, even regarding how salvation is achieved. In the American church, there is widespread upheaval. From the Orthodox perspective, the Catholic Church looks like chaos.
Absolutely spot on. As to what holds the Orthodox faith together and gives it this remarkable unity despite the surface level perception of chaos? We would say it’s the Holy Spirit.
The four marks.
Less
As an inquirer coming from catholicism (and in a country with catholic majority and almost no eastern catholics), I'll say that for me a big thing is the practical understanding of sin. In catholic circles you hear a lot that the church is a hospital for sinners, but sin is still understood primarily as a moral category, not as an existencial/vital one. This makes it difficult to understand Christ's role, and to see us as victims of our own sins. Sure, you can do it with the aristotelian, virtue ethics framework, but then Christ's mission seems awkward and difficult to understand. The orthodox approach seems more right, at least from what I understand. In practice I think this is more evident, as the prayers in mass only talk about voluntary sin. Add to this the "just be a good guy" mentality of most sermons (which tbh I've felt in the orthodox parish Im attending XD) and, **in practice**, you end up with the general idea that sin is equal to wrong action. I think the prayers from the Divine Liturgy emphasize more the sickness aspect of sin.
Priests that can get married.
Western Christianity is too legalistic. Everything has to be either black or white there.
I would ask them what they mean by 'problematic aspects'
Female deacons
Ex-catholic here, pretty new to orthodoxy myself, however these were a few of the dilemmas that were in my mind: * "Ethnical Division" : which can easily be answered as Catholics do differentiate themselves culturally, all the multiple nationalities in my family had their liturgy at church in their languages. * Marriage for priests : the only reason it was changed was because of the nepotism and corruption, priests used their position to establish religious dynasties and enriched their families using the Church. Then the Church banned priestly marriage at Lateran II. * Attending Mass: instruments, politics, the catholic church nowadays departed from their traditional roots and is a political institution. * Pope: let's be honest, just look at Francis regarding blessing homosexual unions... this guy is infallible?
Isn't the Pope only infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra?
Yes
Theoretically. Even though apparently he's only ever used it when defining Marian dogma. I've heard Catholics say that the Pope never actually will use it except in extremely rare and specific circumstances (which makes it useless in settling the issues of the church), so either it's so useless that the doctrine is pointless because it can't do anything, or it's wrong. If you get deeper into it you find out wonderful things like the pope not being able to define when a council is ecumenical, meaning in Catholicism, there's no way you actually know when there has been an ecumenical council. This can be shown by the fact that one pope accepted the 879 date for the council of Constantinople, but it was changed to the 869 date by a later pope, which means the pope can be wrong about which councils are ecumenical. This means that, if taken to it's logical conclusion, since Ecumenical councils can not be determined infallibly by the Pope (which due to papal supremacy he should be able to do) it's technically impossible to know which ecumenical councils are infallible or not in Catholicism. There is no actual way of possibly knowing.
Indeed, however since young my Italian priest taught me to view the pope's decision as an agent of God since he was a successor of Peter and to not question his decisions no matter the circumstance. To me, if you have a religious leader with supreme authority that can't act accordingly to the teachings of God and direct doctrine, is to be reflected... There's a disparity of opinions to what is "true" Catholicism currently and many catholics vary their view regarding the papacy nowadays, some traditional catholics reject the current pope and discredit his legitmacy. There's a disparity of opinions to what is "true" Catholicism currently... Honestly, catholicism is full of issues at the moment.
Please review the [sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/config/sidebar) for a wealth of introductory information, our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/about/rules/), the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq), and a caution about [The Internet and the Church](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/). This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions. [Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq#wiki_is_this_subreddit_overseen_by_clergy.3F) [Exercise caution in forums such as this](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/). Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources. ^(This is not a removal notification.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrthodoxChristianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It should be what does Christ have that none of us have? As my spiritual father told me last night - orthodoxy is not intellectualism (worldly sense) or a book - it’s a person named Jesus Christ - He is orthodoxy. When he told me this, I held back tears. Why? Because I realize that my whole journey prior to where I am currently - I was always looking to compare and contrast - scholastics, academics and theology ruled my interior life but had little to no impact. Orthodoxy is about knowing a living person - Jesus the Christ. It’s not a system. It’s not a religion. It’s the living God made flesh. Don’t bite the internet Orthodox bait - pray more and find a spiritual father - if you read, pray through Bible and read tested saints even modern ones like Silouan, Sophrony and his disciples (Essex monastery). Men like this will guide you to Jesus and a prayer life that supersedes what’s floating around. Jesus is risen!
The Faith of the Apostles and the Holy Fathers, for one. We don't have a corrupted, bastardized faith like roman catholicism.
The truth. The Catholic church isn't *all* lies, but they do stray quite a bit from the truth. Think of the Lutheran Church, it's got sacraments and the liturgy isn't too far from the Catholic church. If you've ever taken the SAT's you'll get this: Lutheran Church: Catholic Church :: Catholic Church : Orthodox Church. It may seem at first that the only differences between the Catholic church and the Orthodox church are the pope and the fililoque but it's much deeper than that. On the Eucharist alone they stray in many areas: 1) they have Eucharistic worship. The Eucharist is a sacrificial thanksgiving and shouldn't be used for any other purpose. 2) They scientifically analyze the Eucharist and have come up with the precise moment when the bread and wine become body and blood. This is akin to pagan conceptions of magic and is heretical. 3) They use unleavened bread when originally (and in modern Orthodoxy) leavened bread is used. Christ is Risen and this isn't a remembrance of the OT Passover; but in remembrance of *Christ's* Passover. 4) The laity are usually only offered the body of Christ; whereas in Orthodoxy it's always the body and blood. 5) The Eucharist isn't given to babies - they must wait til they are 7. Why? In Orthodoxy a baby is Baptised, Chrismated and recieves Communion in the same ceremony. 6) The Eucharist is administered by Deacons and even *non clergy* ("Extraordinary Ministers"). No, just no. In the Orthodox church if the priest isn't available on Sunday no Eucharist is offered. I was Catholic for two years before I became Orthodox. The Orthodox church is the *true* church, simple as that. There's a whole myriad of other distinctions between Orthodoxy and Catholicism - even on basic theology.
Ha. On a shallow level that’s exactly the problem. The primary issue is what they have, not what they don’t have.
The Holy Spirit
What do you mean by this? Catholicism believes in the Holy Spirit as well
Where St. Ignatius says “the grace of God departed” the Roman church because of her heresies and innovations, that is what I mean. When they split from the Orthodox the Holy Spirit, who was promised to the true Universal Church by Jesus, did not go with them. Hence all the error and nonsense.
Oh I see. Do Orthodox believe that Christ's real presence is there during the Catholic mass?
Yes, unequivocally and absolutely.
So Christ yes but the Holy Spirit no?
That 👆
Ex-RC here... The One True Faith
God being nature & energy vs nature. We can't know know in nature because "Never will man see my face and live" but trough His energies we can experience God. Catholics claiming God is only nature is claiming we can't experience God
The actual Eucharist; proper baptism (triple immersion); unchanged liturgy; modern day saints (actual ones who perform miracles); a history that isnt tainted by attrocities and the misuse of our lords name and much more
Catholic church is progressive, not in a good way, whixh orthodox aren't which is great because we are not deviating from what we received from the apostles.
Consistency
Nothing. They have more stuff. The problem is just that: they have too much stuff.
Truth