Not sure if this is the official RCC position but my understanding is that we recognize that the Orthodox sacraments offer the same graces and are Apostolic and therefore "Valid". However, being that we are not in communion we should not receive communion and that goes both ways. Only in the rarest, most extreme circumstances would it be acceptable to receive from an Orthodox priest - and the priest should be in agreement on that too. There is nothing we find "wrong" or deficient about the Orthodox Eucharist or sacraments, but we are unfortunately separated for a reason. In no circumstances should a Catholic receive crackers and grape juice at a Protestant service.

Seems the RCC is ok with EO approach but not vice versa or RCC faithful going to EO liturgy for communion. Thanks for correcting me.

Quote:

---

"Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own and are properly disposed" (Code of Canon Law, canon 8443).

"Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that the danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid" (canon 844 2).

Whereas the Catholic Church will administer the sacraments to Orthodox Christians who freely desire them, a Catholic individual may receive from Orthodox ministers only if they cannot approach a Catholic minister. Even then, there must be either necessity or a "true spiritual advantage."

---

https://catholicexchange.com/are-catholic-and-orthodox-sacraments-interchangeable/

I think it really comes down to what we are saying we believe when we present ourselves for communion. We are receiving Jesus onto our tongues and into our bodies, and this is something no one should take lightly or casually. Many Protestants are offended that they are told they cannot receive the Eucharist at Mass, but they do not believe in everything it is - even if they believe in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist their beliefs differ. I think the same is true between the EO and RCC believers only we are not offended because of it but rather respect and honor it. The idea of me receiving communion in an EO Divine Liturgy is just not even a thing, and I am not offended by it. In fact it makes me hunger for unity.

This is true for Eastern Catholics, too, who would easily be mistaken for Orthodox with their beautiful liturgy and their recitation of the creed without the Filioque. They represent the closest thing we have to being one, but they commune with Rome and not the East.

It is my understanding that a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments from the Orthodox, if there is a Catholic Church they could attend as well. We can receive from other rites in communion with Rome, i.e. the Maronites. I think if you are in a remote area and all that is available is an Orthodox parish than you can try to receive special permission.

I think with the assault on Tradition and especially the Traditional Latin Mass in the Catholic Church there is a fascination with the Orthodox, and their beautiful Liturgy. I wouldn't be surprised if some Catholics tried to attend and receive out of either ignorance or longing proper Liturgy and reverence for the faith and Eucharist.

Yes it is. Zobel kindly linked the an article that references current canon law. Regardless what some Catholics may say, the official position is we recognize the Orthodox Church's sacraments. The Catholic Church recognizes too the sacraments of baptism and marriage from other Christian communities. We don't practice rebaptism or remarry like others.

Regarding transubstantiation, I think you will find that the western and eastern traditions often speak of the same things in different ways. What used to divide us is now been attributed to cultural sensitives or language differences (Latin and Greek). The substantive issue that remains is the Pope's universal jurisdiction. It's why I cringe when I hear "convertodox" say the Protestants are closer to Catholics than the Orthodox are to Catholics. It's really just online rhetoric from people who choose to be hyper polemical. The reality on the ground is the Orthodox bishops have varying opinions. Patriarch Kirill, Met Alfeyev, Patriarch Bartholomew, Patriarch Daniel, Patriarch John X, Patriarch Theodore, etc are welcoming and dialogue with Catholics all the time and accept catholic sacraments. The real Orthodox opinion is nuanced but principled.

Cringe away. In a lot of ways Protestants are closer to Catholics. This isn't polemic, but observation. Of course in a lot of other ways the RCC is much closer to the Orthodox than Protestants are. Those are some pretty broad brush statements, even "Protestant" covers everything from high church liturgical groups to who knows what all.

I stick with St Photios when he says in the end the only thing which divides us is the Filioque. Of course, that can't really be addressed without looking at the claims of the papacy, and things have gotten considerably worse since St Photios' time with anathemas that condemn the Orthodox. For example...

"if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema."

"if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."

"if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."

"we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

So I suppose at this point it is 4x anathemas on papal infallibility and jurisdiction AND the filioque which separate us, and you really can't get to the latter without going through the former at this point.


Also to be more on topic, here is a homily by St Mark of Ephesus regarding purgatory.
https://nftu.net/first-homily-of-st-mark-of-ephesus-on-prayer-for-the-dead-and-against-the-roman-catholic-purgatory/

Is this the same St. Mark that was at the council of Florence? The one man who blocked the reunion of the East and West.

Hard to attribute it to one person. But yes, that St Mark. What blocked reunion was the rejection of the union by the eastern church collectively. All but him signed it there, though none concelebrated the Eucharist there or in Venice. Of course, he is revered as a saint by us for this reason.

I think a lot of this comes from a certain way to define denominations. When you start to draw ideas about unity with authority structures, you're always going to run into the exact problems you're describing. Sometimes even Orthodoxy isn't very Orthodox, in that regard.

As I understand it, authenticity is based only on following the canons and pursuing theological alignment with patristic consensus.

There is no "accrediting" entity in this model. There is no historical litmus test. There is no geographic or political tie-in. There is no administrative function.

It becomes very objective in a way. You're either in or out by your own confessions. Other canons become evaluated exactly like the canon of scripture - that is to say, what scriptures do you use authoritatively? what canons do you consider authoritative?

Unity is then strictly spiritual and the evidence of the spiritual is doctrinal, and is witnessed to by being in communion by choice with each other. Which, again, are all very objective things.

Zobel said:

---

I think a lot of this comes from a certain way to define denominations. When you start to draw ideas about unity with authority structures, you're always going to run into the exact problems you're describing. Sometimes even Orthodoxy isn't very Orthodox, in that regard.

As I understand it, authenticity is based only on following the canons and pursuing theological alignment with patristic consensus.

There is no "accrediting" entity in this model. There is no historical litmus test. There is no geographic or political tie-in. There is no administrative function.

It becomes very objective in a way. You're either in or out by your own confessions. Other canons become evaluated exactly like the canon of scripture - that is to say, what scriptures do you use authoritatively? what canons do you consider authoritative?

Unity is then strictly spiritual and the evidence of the spiritual is doctrinal, and is witnessed to by being in communion by choice with each other. Which, again, are all very objective things.

---

Honest question then, how does the eastern orthodox reconcile their own schisms? Do they care to? No communion with oriental orthodox or the finnish autonomous orthodox church? Or even the recently declared Archbishop of Ukraine being created against the voting of Achbhishop of Russia? That wasn't a 100% consensus, so there's clearly a varying level of consensus required for varying levels of church doctrine. Which is fine, but it just sounds like, 'we vote on it' like most other churches. And when you ask, 'how many votes does it take to make to pass this very important decision versus the votes required to pass a less important decision?' the answer is 'we voted on that too.'

"Your in or your out by your own confessions" seems very protestant to me.

Its a truly honest question. I've enjoyed the orthodox perspective on a lot of doctrine that I've run across lately.

I absolutely love what I have learned from Zobel and the other EO posters. They have helped me better understand my faith in ways I didn't even realize before, and I find myself in almost complete agreement with everything they believe. This is why I find it hard to understand statements like "the EO are closer to Protestants than Catholics". It is really a strange thing to me when I find myself in virtually complete agreement theologically.

The only area I find myself in disagreement on is church governance and the Pope. Believe me when I say the EO is very attractive to a conservative catholic. What we are seeing unfold in the current schism taking place highlights some of the issues with unity in the East.

Even on the Filioque. I believe we have a distinction without a difference on the Filioque. I think I can 100% agree with the Orthodox position on the issue and The RCC view is completely reconcilable with the EO. Maybe I still don't get the issue but we do not believe or profess that the Holy Spirit is subordinate or somehow came to existence after the Son.

Edit to add: Zobel maybe you can help me better understand where the flaw in my views may be?

The criticism is leveled exactly at situations like Russia-Ukraine, where you have people with historical (we have the legacy of the baptism of the Kievan Rus) or geopolitical claims vying for temporal power. None of that matters. It's beyond ironic when you start to see these type of papal claims arise in Orthodoxy.

Again, unity is spiritual and doctrinal, as evidenced by confession and practice.

There is nothing spiritual or doctrinal about whether Ukraine should have an autocephalous church. It's not a doctrinal issue, it's a temporal one.

The communion of the Oriental Orthodox is one based on a difference of confession. Which, while lamentable, is pretty objective.

Quote:

---

"Your in or your out by your own confessions" seems very protestant to me.

---

Only insofar as it is in opposition to the idea of an "accrediting" or central authorizing dogma like the concept of the magisterium.

I think the quote people object to is that the protestants and RCC are closer to each other than the RCC is to the EO. Which is true sometimes and false sometimes depending on the issue, and depending on what your reference point for "protestant" is. That's such a big bucket that it's kind of useless.

There are a lot of basic presuppositions shared between the RCC and the Reformers that are not shared in the East, so a lot of the arguments surrounding the Reformation don't have a "right" answer from the Orthodox perspective. It's like people arguing about whether something is purple or blue when the answer is red. To me, Luther's soteriology for example is closer to Rome than the East. Of course a low-church protestant who rejects all sacraments as only symbols and only accepts the invisible church, scripture only, no church fathers, no priesthood, and so on has almost nothing in common with either the RCC or the EO. I think sometimes people think of one, vs the other.

The filioque is one example of commonality between all western churches (those that use a creed, anyway) that is not common with Orthodoxy. The Augustinian tradition dominates western thought, but he is not nearly as important in the East... and was really never accepted without reservation, though St Photios for example calls him blessed and I have no problem calling him a saint.

If you want an over-long discussion on the filioque, read here.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2818901

Faithful Ag said:

---

I absolutely love what I have learned from Zobel and the other EO posters. They have helped me better understand my faith in ways I didn't even realize before, and I find myself in almost complete agreement with everything they believe. This is why I find it hard to understand statements like "the EO are closer to Protestants than Catholics". It is really a strange thing to me when I find myself in virtually complete agreement theologically.

The only area I find myself in disagreement on is church governance and the Pope. Believe me when I say the EO is very attractive to a conservative catholic. What we are seeing unfold in the current schism taking place highlights some of the issues with unity in the East.

---

I think if you dig deep you will find that we don't line up theologically. There are similarities but the RCC stance on absolute divine simplicity compared to the EOC essence and energy distinctions hold major differences. Also the idea of created grace.

Check out Aristotle East and West by David Bradshaw, specifically the chapter on Palamas and Aquinas.

Not to mention RCC vs. Orthodox position on birth control. I agree, we are not that similar!

Thankfully, though, we are workers in the same field.

Quote:

---

In a lot of ways Protestants are closer to Catholics.

---

You continue to say this. I mean, I don't believe you, but I also lack the firepower to challenge you in any meaningful way. Kind of like Palestinians throwing rocks at tanks...

Yeah other than the filioque and Luthers soteriology, which I have no idea what that is (yet), seems very light on the details so far. Not that I have a burning desire to be close to the EO, but this whole thing seems needlessly argumentative and esoteric. You've got prominent Catholics and Orthodox people saying that reconciliation is very possible and that most of our differences just might be overcome, including the filioque, that would indicate that were much closer to them than Protestants. But some Protestants like the Anglican Rite folks have indeed come back, so perhaps were comparing one apple to a bucket of oranges here - not really a point to it.

The theological and philosophical underpinnings are where the meaningful differences lie. Those form some very specific presuppositions. The differences in how Aristotle was received as Bradshaw's book talks about is a big part, and this actually is a big part of the filioque controversy. I think it's tempting to assume the filioque is just this thing by itself, but the truth is it represents a different understanding about the Trinity - primarily the idea that there is the Essence as somehow distinct or causative behind the Persons. The energies and essences distinction has an east/west divide, as shown by St Gregory Palamas and Barlaam. The West tends to view God as Essence; the East always as Persons.

An excerpt from Bradshaw's book:

Quote:

---

...the gulf separating Augustine from the eastern tradition is immense. It encompasses such basic issues as the nature of being, the simplicity of God, the intelligibility of God, and the final goal of human existence. What is perhaps most remarkable is that the Augustinian presuppositions...could come to dominate the thought of the West, while having virtually not influence in the East, and yet for almost a thousand years neither side recognized what had happened. Instead the controversy between them focused on relatively peripheral issues such as the filioque and the role of the Papacy. Recognition of the underlying philosophical differences, when it finally did occur, came only grudgingly [between Barlaam and Palamas].

---

How often do Catholics here quote Aquinas/Aristotle as thought thinking itself? Or the idea of salvation ultimately as achieving the beatific vision? This is a way the East never went. Even the concept of essence plays out very differently. This essay talks about it a bit - some excerpts:

Quote:

---

Theologically, the traditional classical theism in the West tends to isolate the divine and supernatural from the human, material and temporal dimension, placing God and the spiritual completely in the immaterial, inaccessible and transcendent 'block'. Besides identifying God largely as an eternal divine essence, this mentality presents to us a supreme Deity who is perfectly conscious but is not present to us in a face-to-face manner. Nor is this God interested in embracing personally each person, family, community, society, as well as all their details, aspects and dimensions.

---

Quote:

---

Notably, the East and the West use the term 'divine essence' in different senses. For example, the understanding in the West that only the souls taken into Heaven can 'clearly see the Triune God and enjoy the divine essence for all eternity' (Jesuit Fathers, 1973, 353) represents a significant difference in comprehension regarding the term essence. To Eastern 'realized eschatology', the West as a whole has yet to address this divine immanence or promise of God for us to become participants of His nature here on earth in a real, unmediated fashion (cf. Maloney, 1978, pp.7-123). Moreover, to the East, God's Divine Essence is eternally imparticapable to us creatures; it is only articipable among the Three Divine Persons in Their essential union. Had Palamas' distinction been integrated with Western tradition, we might have said that those in Heaven can forever enjoy, according to their fullest created capacity, God's Divine Energy as experienced earlier on earth to a certain degree by the holy Apostles and mystics. At any rate, the East and the West are not contradictory in affirming that God will be seen face-to-face or participated in without created medium in Heaven. Following Vatican II's encouraging spirit of theological renewal (Gaudium et spes, 62, in: Flannery, 1981, 966-968), it seems that both traditions would benefit much each other from their openness to one another.

---

The more juridical models of sin and salvation, the more mechanistic type understandings of Atonement, grace, salvation, all are part of a Western tradition which is shared by Roman Catholics and Protestants and not by the East.

Like I said you can find lots of continuities and lots of discontinuities depending on what you look at. The OCA website in a Q&A has this to say:

Quote:

---

Question
Would you say that the Orthodox Church is closer to the Roman Catholic Church than to the Protestant churches?

Answer
It is hard to answer that question easily without giving the wrong impression. The Protestant churches, as you know, came out of the Roman Church when this body was already separated from the Eastern Orthodox Church. Thus, as one Russian theologian put it in the last century, it is probably true to say that the Roman and Reformed Protestant churches are much closer to each other--historically, spiritually, theologically, culturally, psychologically--than the Orthodox Church is to either.

The many events and changes in the various churches in recent days, not excluding the Orthodox Church, makes this question still more difficult to answer. Thus, although we might say that the Orthodox are closer to the so-called "high" churches of the West such as the Roman and Anglican, it might be much safer and more correct to approach Orthodoxy solely on its own ground without too much comparison to others.

---

It offends the Roman Catholics I think because they tend to see the Protestants as one group, and then over here you have "us and the Orthodox". But I think that is one-sided.

Another interesting book that teases some of these things out is Augsburg and Constantinople. The second-Generation Lutherans were surprised that there was not common ground both on things they disagreed with Rome on but also on things they agreed with Rome - which they assumed Constantinople would agree with them in both cases.

So yeah if you compare a skinny-jeans wearing dude with a tattoo with rock music and preaching from a stage versus a robed priest offering the Eucharist to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy you'll see one thing. If you consider the theological underpinnings of how skinny-jeans and Roman Catholic priests are taught in seminary about God you'll see something else.

Zobel said:

---

The theological and philosophical underpinnings are where the meaningful differences lie. Those form some very specific presuppositions. The differences in how Aristotle was received as Bradshaw's book talks about is a big part, and this actually is a big part of the filioque controversy. I think it's tempting to assume the filioque is just this thing by itself, but the truth is it represents a different understanding about the Trinity - primarily the idea that there is the Essence as somehow distinct or causative behind the Persons. The energies and essences distinction has an east/west divide, as shown by St Gregory Palamas and Barlaam. The West tends to view God as Essence; the East always as Persons.

An excerpt from Bradshaw's book:

Quote:

---

...the gulf separating Augustine from the eastern tradition is immense. It encompasses such basic issues as the nature of being, the simplicity of God, the intelligibility of God, and the final goal of human existence. What is perhaps most remarkable is that the Augustinian presuppositions...could come to dominate the thought of the West, while having virtually not influence in the East, and yet for almost a thousand years neither side recognized what had happened. Instead the controversy between them focused on relatively peripheral issues such as the filioque and the role of the Papacy. Recognition of the underlying philosophical differences, when it finally did occur, came only grudgingly [between Barlaam and Palamas].

---

How often do Catholics here quote Aquinas/Aristotle as thought thinking itself? Or the idea of salvation ultimately as achieving the beatific vision? This is a way the East never went. Even the concept of essence plays out very differently. This essay talks about it a bit - some excerpts:

Quote:

---

Theologically, the traditional classical theism in the West tends to isolate the divine and supernatural from the human, material and temporal dimension, placing God and the spiritual completely in the immaterial, inaccessible and transcendent 'block'. Besides identifying God largely as an eternal divine essence, this mentality presents to us a supreme Deity who is perfectly conscious but is not present to us in a face-to-face manner. Nor is this God interested in embracing personally each person, family, community, society, as well as all their details, aspects and dimensions.

---

Quote:

---

Notably, the East and the West use the term 'divine essence' in different senses. For example, the understanding in the West that only the souls taken into Heaven can 'clearly see the Triune God and enjoy the divine essence for all eternity' (Jesuit Fathers, 1973, 353) represents a significant difference in comprehension regarding the term essence. To Eastern 'realized eschatology', the West as a whole has yet to address this divine immanence or promise of God for us to become participants of His nature here on earth in a real, unmediated fashion (cf. Maloney, 1978, pp.7-123). Moreover, to the East, God's Divine Essence is eternally imparticapable to us creatures; it is only articipable among the Three Divine Persons in Their essential union. Had Palamas' distinction been integrated with Western tradition, we might have said that those in Heaven can forever enjoy, according to their fullest created capacity, God's Divine Energy as experienced earlier on earth to a certain degree by the holy Apostles and mystics. At any rate, the East and the West are not contradictory in affirming that God will be seen face-to-face or participated in without created medium in Heaven. Following Vatican II's encouraging spirit of theological renewal (Gaudium et spes, 62, in: Flannery, 1981, 966-968), it seems that both traditions would benefit much each other from their openness to one another.

---

The more juridical models of sin and salvation, the more mechanistic type understandings of Atonement, grace, salvation, all are part of a Western tradition which is shared by Roman Catholics and Protestants and not by the East.

Like I said you can find lots of continuities and lots of discontinuities depending on what you look at. The OCA website in a Q&A has this to say:

Quote:

---

Question
Would you say that the Orthodox Church is closer to the Roman Catholic Church than to the Protestant churches?

Answer
It is hard to answer that question easily without giving the wrong impression. The Protestant churches, as you know, came out of the Roman Church when this body was already separated from the Eastern Orthodox Church. Thus, as one Russian theologian put it in the last century, it is probably true to say that the Roman and Reformed Protestant churches are much closer to each other--historically, spiritually, theologically, culturally, psychologically--than the Orthodox Church is to either.

The many events and changes in the various churches in recent days, not excluding the Orthodox Church, makes this question still more difficult to answer. Thus, although we might say that the Orthodox are closer to the so-called "high" churches of the West such as the Roman and Anglican, it might be much safer and more correct to approach Orthodoxy solely on its own ground without too much comparison to others.

---

It offends the Roman Catholics I think because they tend to see the Protestants as one group, and then over here you have "us and the Orthodox". But I think that is one-sided.

Another interesting book that teases some of these things out is Augsburg and Constantinople. The second-Generation Lutherans were surprised that there was not common ground both on things they disagreed with Rome on but also on things they agreed with Rome - which they assumed Constantinople would agree with them in both cases.

So yeah if you compare a skinny-jeans wearing dude with a tattoo with rock music and preaching from a stage versus a robed priest offering the Eucharist to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy you'll see one thing. If you consider the theological underpinnings of how skinny-jeans and Roman Catholic priests are taught in seminary about God you'll see something else.

---

I understand what your saying…But when you say meaningful differences…if we all (RCC, EO, Protestants,) have faithfully accepted Christ as our savior, isn't that THE most meaningful commonality? I'm not saying those other things aren't important, I'm just looking at it from most critical common beliefs (even without getting into sola fides, fides formats etc)

You've got him now! Zobel better put his EO thinking cap on for this one lol

Well, that's kind of the point the fathers make that there's a difference between doctrinal differences and theological differences. In St Photios' time he said, well yeah the Latins do all of this stuff differently but really the only thing that matters is the filioque, because that's a theological difference. Forgive if this is a harsh comparison, but you could say something similar along the lines of, the Arians do this stuff differently but really the only thing that matters is that they say the Son is a creation, because that's a theological difference.

Would you say that an Arian has faithfully accepted Christ as savior? Isn't that THE most meaningful commonality? I know that's probably unfair, but in the end these are the lines that have been drawn through the symbol of faith. The same symbol which now separates the West the East, even.

How a difference like plays out is something else. But then you say, well... does the filioque manifest itself? I mean if the symbol is not the faith itself but instead reflects the faith, you'd expect that praxis would come out. And I think it does... in how the West talks about God, how western theologians came to speak of salvation... even the papacy and later anathemas.

Zobel said:

---

Well, that's kind of the point the fathers make that there's a difference between doctrinal differences and theological differences. In St Photios' time he said, well yeah the Latins do all of this stuff differently but really the only thing that matters is the filioque, because that's a theological difference. Forgive if this is a harsh comparison, but you could say something similar along the lines of, the Arians do this stuff differently but really the only thing that matters is that they say the Son is a creation, because that's a theological difference.

Would you say that an Arian has faithfully accepted Christ as savior? Isn't that THE most meaningful commonality? I know that's probably unfair, but in the end these are the lines that have been drawn through the symbol of faith. The same symbol which now separates the West the East, even.

How a difference like plays out is something else. But then you say, well... does the filioque manifest itself? I mean if the symbol is not the faith itself but instead reflects the faith, you'd expect that praxis would come out. And I think it does... in how the West talks about God, how western theologians came to speak of salvation... even the papacy and later anathemas.

---

That went a little over my head. Can u give me a quick take on the filioque? I that the difference by the east and west in regard to the Trinity was west believes the HS proceeds from the father and son and east believes from the father only?

Is Arianism a good analogy, or is buttoning on the left versus the right a better analogy?

Who gets to decide what is and isn't the criteria of your religion? You do, no?

The same people bemoaning the separation are also usually just as entrenched in their own positions.

$50 says Jabin isn't comfortable with worshipping with Islam or Mormons. "Same God". Major in the minors? What is more major than the divinely revealed nature of the Trinity itself?

Nothing like telling people their most closely held religious beliefs are irrelevant. Tsk.

Yes. At Nicaea (and Constantinople) the fathers said, ok we will formulate something we can confess represents our understanding of God as taught by the Apostles. It spoke of the Trinity in certain ways. They all agreed that this should not be changed, and subsequent councils reaffirmed this understanding.

Part of it was that the Son is the same essence as the Father, which was against Arianism in particular.

Another part was that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Which incidentally is scriptural in the words of the Lord. Later this was unilaterally changed - and accepted in fit and starts over centuries - in the west. It says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But this is just as wrong to us Orthodox as saying the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit. If the last sentence sounds wrong to you, that's how we feel about the filioque.

There are lots of philosophical and theological arguments behind the disagreement and why it matters and is relevant t. But the bottom line is that is not the faith confessed by the fathers for centuries as affirmed by many ecumenical councils.

Jabin said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Comparing Catholics to Orthodox to Protestants is like comparing Caesar salad to Greek salad to a full dumpster. And I say that as a Protestant.

None of these categories is uniform in belief or practice, but with Protestants it doesn't make any sense to even try to compare them as a group. Anglicans are basically Catholic-lite, but Pentecostals are an entirely different animal. But even Pentecostals are considered mainstream compared to Seventh-day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses, and even they are more mainstream than Mormons. How do you lump all that as a category for comparison?

I also don't get the exclusivity inherent in all this. If an Orthodox person goes to a Baptist service and takes Communion, how is that a bad thing? Even if it the Baptists don't believe in the Real Presence and it is therefore not really the Eucharist, how is taking bread and wine while praying and worshipping Jesus a bad thing? If those are all good things separately, why are they bad together? Vice versa, if I understand the teachings of the Catholic Church and want the Eucharist, isn't the priest casting judgement on me by refusing? Even if he is just earnestly trying to protect me from God's wrath, isn't God the right person to judge my heart? Seems to me the priest can warn anyone appropriately and let God judge those who proceed. I'm not enough of a jerk to ever press the issue, but I just don't get it.

Regarding the Arian comment, a lot of Arians took and administered the Eucharist for decades. Yet today all Catholics, Orthodox, and (nearly all) Protestants are the strictest definition of trinitarian and still aren't in communion. Just things that make my head spin

---

It reminds me of the elder of a Reformed church I attended once. He and his wife very graciously invited me to their home for dinner one evening. After dinner, while discussing things, he informed me that he would not worship with anyone who did not strictly believe in all five points of Calvinism.

It seems that way too many Christians love to major on the minors.

---

Well if you accept something like Christ was a created being or He was a human person then you don't worship or pray to Christ. You're focusing your attention on something else. That doesn't mean you won't be "saved" since nobody can make that judgment but it's not a good process to be faithful to heretical beliefs.

Your Calvinist friend is a good example of this. Why? The far majority of western thinkers do not contend with the east so they are left with only one side of the story and separation from the Church. As harsh as this sounds it's all heretical in some way. Many Protestants are Nestorians without even knowing it. They also hold similar beliefs to Islam when it comes to icons since their understanding of the Incarnation and Eucharist is essentially gnostic. This is why Cyril of Alexandria asked Nestorius "do you eat the body, blood, soul and divinity of a mere man or the Son of God". You can see here with Cyril and even earlier with Justin Martyr that early Christians absolutely believed in the real presence unlike gnostic Protestants. You will find that the east has always held a consistent Christology. All of this follows to a logically consistent position that Christ sanctified matter. The Church by extension also has this power. This is why the Orthodox Church has relics, icons, holy water/oil, miracles, Eucharist, etc.

I still think it is hilarious that some of you still believe in demon sperm!

Zobel said:

---

Who gets to decide what is and isn't the criteria of your religion? You do, no?

The same people bemoaning the separation are also usually just as entrenched in their own positions.

$50 says Jabin isn't comfortable with worshipping with Islam or Mormons. "Same God". Major in the minors? What is more major than the divinely revealed nature of the Trinity itself?

Nothing like telling people their most closely held religious beliefs are irrelevant. Tsk.

---

Is that not exactly what you are doing?