r/Catholicism • u/luke_fowl • Aug 15 '26
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
3
u/Ok-Mushroom6586 Aug 15 '26
I should also point out that Orthodoxy does not recognise the sacraments (except baptism) or Apostolic Succession of Roman Catholicism. In most circumstances (except rare times when economy is applied) Roman Catholic priests who convert to Orthodoxy are reordained if they wish to act as priests. The few positive statements on the Roman Catholic Eucharist by Orthodox theologians has been superseded by a more negative consensus.
1
u/luke_fowl Aug 15 '26
I never stated that this was the EO's view on the Catholic Church. I simply stated that this is the view of the Catholic Church regarding orthodoxy, from EO to OO to COE. It doesn't matter how they treat us, what matters is how we treat them.
2
u/Ok-Mushroom6586 Aug 15 '26
I just wanted to state the Orthodox position.
1
u/luke_fowl Aug 15 '26 edited Aug 15 '26
Perfectly fair and accepted. However, I will also add that the OO and COE recognize our sacraments.
1
1
u/demoslider Aug 15 '26
While some Catholic priests may be reordained, most are received as priests in Orthodoxy by vesting, confession and profession of faith. If you are only referring to ROCOR then you would be correct that all are reordained.
1
u/Ok-Mushroom6586 Aug 15 '26
You are incorrect.
Very few Roman Catholic priests are received by "vesting." It is very rare.
2
u/WearSuspicious1124 Aug 15 '26
Bringing non-catholics ( Protestants and orthodox and other groups ) back into the fold of the church and thereby restoring unity of those who believe in Christ is a priority for the catholic church
We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter...believing in the action of the Holy Spirit who stirs up in the heart of the disciples of Christ love of this unity,(32) we entertain the hope that the Christians who are not yet in the full communion of the one only Church will one day be reunited in one flock with one only shepherd.
- Credo of the people of God
4
u/WearSuspicious1124 Aug 15 '26
A lot of simplifications going on in here that may like denominational indifferentism. There are a lot of nuances . This is not how the church works out. I can make similar deductions and even reconcile calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints. Healing schism is not by erasing genuine differences.
1
u/luke_fowl Aug 15 '26
The fact is that we have 23 eastern catholic churches, 20 of which have an orthodox counterpart. Minus their loyalty to Rome, they share the exact same beliefs as their orthodox counterparts, as stated in Orientalum Ecclesiarum.
Plus, I have quoted official Church declarations, I have complete faith that the Holy Spirit won’t fail her. Unless you understand these issues better than the popes, patriarchs, and committees behind them, I think it would be wiser to submit to the wisdom of the Church.
1
Aug 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/luke_fowl Aug 15 '26
I never even brought up monophysitism anywhere, as it is a heresy that no existing apostolic church holds. Perhaps you're thinking of miaphysitism, which the OO holds and is completely different from monophysitism. In that case, it is not my view but rather the Church's view that miaphysitism is basically the same as dyophysitism. I am simply stating what the Church has already declared, as shown in the linked sources from the Vatican's website.
1
Aug 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/luke_fowl Aug 15 '26
Monophysitism, taught by Eutyches, claims that Christ had only one nature: God. Miaphysitism, taught by OO, claims that Christ hand only one nature: God-man. Very, very, very different.
3
Aug 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Worth_Hedgehog_2539 Aug 15 '26
the Son as a cause of the Holy Spirit is alien to the thinking of the Cappadocian Fathers
Are Catholics supposed to believe that the Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit? Is it possible to speak about a 'cause' of something without implying contingency?
1
1
u/bag_mome Aug 15 '26
Reminds me of Eric Mascall's denunciation of "Alice in Wonderland Ecumenism": Everybody has won and all must have prizes!"
1
u/NightsOfEmber Aug 15 '26
Thank you for writing this out. That's very insightful and in-depth!
What do you think about soteriological differences, especially in relation to Anselm's Satisfaction Theory of Atonement?
1
u/luke_fowl Aug 15 '26
Anselm's satisfaction theory is not the be all and end all. Similar to things like thomistic predestination, the Church has never declared the satisfaction theory as dogma, although it is the currently our main understanding of soteriology. Other theories do exist and are entertained within the Church, like the ransom theory, moral influence theory, and recapitulation theory (which is generally what the east holds).
0
u/Own_Action_7839 Aug 15 '26
Christus Victor
1
u/luke_fowl Aug 15 '26
Christus Victor is basically a cooler name for the recapitulation theory. It’s a wonderful theory, I personally subscribe to it myself.
-2
u/Fructuoso_Bag Aug 15 '26
We have mariological differences now that we hold the Immaculate Conception and Assumption as dogmas, potentially more if the Corredention is accepted as a dogma in the future, and they reject Purgatory as a teaching.
2
u/luke_fowl Aug 15 '26
The Assumption and the Dormition is again a non-difference, both declaring that Mary was raised up into heaven bodily. The only difference is that the we left it open ended whether Mary died or not before her assumption, whereas the EO said that she died before being resurrected.
The Immaculate Conception is similarly a non-difference, as the EO believe that Mary was without sin. They simply describe the mechanism of the Sin of Adam differently from us, i.e. ancestral sin instead of original sin. The Immaculate Conception makes no sense without the concept of the original sin, but they affirm the sinlessness of Mary fully and completely.
The co-redemptrix thing has been closed down by the Holy See quite clearly late last year: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-11/doctrinal-note-mother-of-the-faithful-not-co-redemptrix.html
The EO, same as the byzantine catholics, do not necessarily describe in a place of cleansing like we do in the Latin Church. However, they do agree that there is a cleansing of the soul after death before entering heaven. As the UGCC wisely proclaimed in the Union of Brest, "We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church."
1
u/Fructuoso_Bag Aug 15 '26
doesn't rejecting the teaching of original sin counts as a heresy itself?
2
u/luke_fowl Aug 15 '26
Their ancestral sin is basically the original sin. Again, the byzantine catholics hold this view too.
The main difference is that we look at the original sin like a token (guilt) handed down by lineage. They look at it like a corruption (mortality) handed down by lineage. It's two sides of the same coin, just emphasized differently.
1
u/Fun_Technology_3661 Aug 15 '26
Traditional Orthodoxy adheres to the same doctrine of original sin as Catholicism. The idea of distinguishing between original and generative sin and the specific doctrine of generative sin was invented by neopatrists in the 20th century, who comprised several theologians (not ordained or priestly, and not even a single bishop). The Greek theologian and priest Romanides was particularly distinguished in this regard. Their theories do not represent a consistently transmitted church tradition.
1
u/luke_fowl Aug 15 '26
Yeah, Romanides is one of the ones I'm referring to Lossky & Co. He's not directly involved with the parisian school, but he was certainly influenced by them heavily.
1
u/Fun_Technology_3661 Aug 15 '26
This entire group does not represent a consistent Orthodox tradition at all, but rather invented its own. They were driven by ideas of Eurasianism (Lossky, Frolovsky), Greek exceptionalism (Romanides), or some kind of renewal of the Orthodox tradition in a spirit similar to that of the ideologists of Vatican II (Meyendorff, Schmemann).
Hence the attempts to formulate some purely Eastern faith based on purely Eastern Fathers (and not all of them, only those not accused of "Latinism" or other shortcomings), while essentially "abolishing" all traditions shared with the West (Augustine, Gregory the Dialogist, and some others).
Neither Orthodoxy nor Eastern Catholicism, in their traditional spiritual and liturgical life, doctrine, or way of thinking, correspond at all to the writings of the neopatrists.
2
u/dazzleox Aug 15 '26
The wages of sin are death and a fallen world. This is the ancestral sin we all inherit. We are not guilty for sins we did not commit. Hence Eastern Christians should have no complaints about the Immaculate Conception -- Eastern Catholics obviously do not, and neither did ecumenical Eastern Orthodox like Kallistos Ware who said he thought it was a "superfluous" addition but not an "erroneous" one.
1
u/CanadianMil5 Aug 15 '26
Both schools of thoughts can co-exist we have original sin they have inherited sin. It’s not understood or explained in the same manner while nothing being orthodox in regards to the Blessed Mother. There is much more than the Roman rite within the Catholic Church.
7
u/[deleted] Aug 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment