Christian Discussion Thread V

[Constantinopolis]

Anyway, changing topics to respond to an important question...

So, please to correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the main theological difference between Orthodox and Catholics is rooted in the filioque.

I wouldn't call that the main difference, at this point. It was the original difference at the time of the Great Schism when the Churches split, but other differences have accumulated in the mean time, and some of them are arguably more important.

Catholics, as I was raised to believe, say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Orthodoxes hold that the Holy spirit proceeds from the father alone, not Jesus.

I don't understand what the latter means. Does that mean Jesus is the son of God but not God himself in Orthodox Theology?

No. It absolutely does not mean that. Jesus is God. This is a basic, fundamental truth upheld by Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants alike (ok, maybe not quite all Protestant groups, depending on who you want to include under the label "Protestant").

So what does it mean that the Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father? Well... it's a very esoteric theological question, relating to the inner nature of the Holy Trinity (as far as we can discern it). We Orthodox insist that the Father is the eternal source, and the Holy Spirit cannot be said to proceed from two sources - although He can be said to proceed from the Father and through the Son (just not "from the Father and [from] the Son"). I must admit I am not very good at explaining this. Perhaps the Filioque article on OrthodoxWiki can help clarify things for you.

In any case, compared to other theological differences - especially the ones between us and the Protestants - this one looks quite minor indeed.

(Keep in mind, I have almost no idea about the differences between the two Denominations)

I think I can help with that! I wrote a post summarizing them over here, in the previous Christian thread.

[Constantinopolis]

In fact, I hope no one will mind if I repost my explanation of Catholic-Orthodox differences in full, given the fact that it was originally posted in the previous incarnation of the Christian thread after all... So, without further ado:

--- Const's list of doctrinal differences between Catholic and Orthodox Christians ---

First of all, I have to mention that this list is unofficial (obviously), and written from an Orthodox point of view. Catholics tend to claim that the theological differences are extremely small, or maybe even just a matter of misunderstanding (because, in general, the Catholic view is that the two Churches could reunite tomorrow if only the Orthodox weren't so nitpicky and stuborn). The Orthodox claim that the theological differences are more significant, and our view is that they represent a major barrier to any kind of reunification at the moment. But at the same time, obviously, we recognize that we have far more in common with the Catholics than with any Protestant group.

And now for the list itself. The differences are as follows:

1. The Filioque - Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Orthodox say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, although we also accept the phrase "from the Father through the Son". The original Creed stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mentioning the Son, and the Orthodox strictly adhere to the Creed as originally written. The phrase "and the Son" (which in Latin is one word: "filioque") was added in later centuries in the West. Catholics argue that this phrase makes no difference one way or the other, and that the Orthodox are just splitting hairs. The Orthodox argue that it makes a big difference, and that you can't just change the Creed willy-nilly like that.

2. Papal primacy - Catholics believe that one bishop (the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope) is the head of the Church and has universal jurisdiction over other bishops and over all Christians. They also ascribe certain other unique roles to the Pope which no other bishop has. The Orthodox have no such "super-bishop". All bishops are equal. We do have Patriarchs, but they're just regular bishops who happen to be in charge of administrative matters over a certain area (i.e. what gets built and where, which priest gets appointed to which parish, and so on). They don't have any power to decide what Orthodox Christians believe.

3. Development of doctrine - the Catholic Church considers it acceptable to declare new doctrines which were not believed by Catholics in previous times. The Orthodox Church considers this idea to be insulting to God, since it implies that Jesus Christ did not tell us everything we need to know for salvation, but left it up to us to discover new requirements later. In the Orthodox view, while it's certainly possible to develop new opinions (= personal views about non-essential topics, which are not mandatory for all Christians), it is not possible to discover new doctrines (= beliefs that are mandatory for Christians). In other words, you can't impose new rules that weren't around before. All that is essential for salvation was known by the Church from the beginning. The Church may clarify doctrines or rephrase them in words that modern people can understand, but it cannot declare that something which was considered false in the past is to be considered true in the future.

The Orthodox don't just take issue with the Pope having the power to decide new doctrines; we take issue with anyone having that power.

4. Purgatory - The Orthodox do not believe in purgatory. However, the Orthodox Church has not officially condemned the idea of "a place of purification" either, so there are some individual Orthodox who may believe in things somewhat similar to Catholic purgatory.

5. There are also certain differences in the understanding of Original Sin. The Orthodox Church generally views Original Sin (or "Ancestral Sin", as we sometimes call it) as a corrupting influence that made human beings predisposed to sin, but not as something carrying guilt for anyone alive today. Some Catholic and Protestant interpretations argue that present-day humans are guilty of Original Sin (but then again, certain Catholic posters in this thread have occasionally stated that this is not the official Catholic view).

6. The immaculate conception - the Catholic idea that Mary the Mother of God was born without the guilt of Original Sin, unlike all other human beings who are born guilty of Original Sin. The Orthodox reject this. We believe that Mary was born like any other human, and was distinguished only by her actions, not by destiny.

7. "Satisfaction soteriology", or the view of salvation as a type of satisfaction of debt - this is almost universally the view of salvation in Western (Catholic and Protestant) theology. The idea is that sinning is like breaking a law, and God is like a policeman who has a duty to punish you for breaking that law, but there's a loophole (the sacrifice of Christ) which allows you to get away without punishment even though you deserve it. The Protestants really embraced this idea with open arms and took it to the extreme, but the Catholic Church endorses it as well. The Orthodox Church does not outright reject it, but we prefer to view sin more like an addiction or a disease, God more like a doctor, and the sacrifice of Christ more like the medicine that will cure you.

Having said that, we take a more mystical approach to spiritual realities (i.e. we believe that you can't describe them precisely with the words we have in our languages; you can only use metaphors), so therefore we're not opposed to describing the same spiritual reality with several different metaphors. Maybe sin is like debt and like disease, in different ways.

8. Indulgences - today this is not an issue any more, but in previous centuries the Catholic Church taught that it is possible to earn exemptions from purgatory, known as "indulgences" (selling indulgences was a type of political corruption and never part of Catholic doctrine, but indulgences themselves were officially approved - not to be sold, but to be given away for certain merits - and technically they are still allowed, although in practice they no longer exist). The Orthodox reject any suggestion that the Church has the power to guarantee any specific eternal reward to any specific person.

9. Absolute divine simplicity and created grace - these are also Catholic doctrines which the Orthodox reject, although I don't understand them well enough to describe them.

10. Papal infallibility - the idea that, under certain very strict conditions, the Pope has the power to make infallible statements. Obviously, the Orthodox reject any claim of infallibility attached to any one man.

These are the differences of content, or belief. In addition, there are a few differences of style. The Orthodox have a different style of worship, obviously, and our priests can be married. The majority of Orthodox Christians are located in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, the Balkan countries, Greece, and certain Arab countries (most notably Syria). There are, however, Orthodox Christians all over the world, including in North America.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Anyway, changing topics to respond to an important question...

So, please to correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the main theological difference between Orthodox and Catholics is rooted in the filioque.

I wouldn't call that the main difference, at this point. It was the original difference at the time of the Great Schism when the Churches split, but other differences have accumulated in the mean time, and some of them are arguably more important.

Wasn't the main difference at the time of the schism Papal Supremacy? I mean isn't that kind of way more important

[Cannabis Islands]

In fact, I hope no one will mind if I repost my explanation of Catholic-Orthodox differences in full, given the fact that it was originally posted in the previous incarnation of the Christian thread after all... So, without further ado:

--- Const's list of doctrinal differences between Catholic and Orthodox Christians ---

First of all, I have to mention that this list is unofficial (obviously), and written from an Orthodox point of view. Catholics tend to claim that the theological differences are extremely small, or maybe even just a matter of misunderstanding (because, in general, the Catholic view is that the two Churches could reunite tomorrow if only the Orthodox weren't so nitpicky and stuborn). The Orthodox claim that the theological differences are more significant, and our view is that they represent a major barrier to any kind of reunification at the moment. But at the same time, obviously, we recognize that we have far more in common with the Catholics than with any Protestant group.

And now for the list itself. The differences are as follows:

1. The Filioque - Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Orthodox say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, although we also accept the phrase "from the Father through the Son". The original Creed stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mentioning the Son, and the Orthodox strictly adhere to the Creed as originally written. The phrase "and the Son" (which in Latin is one word: "filioque") was added in later centuries in the West. Catholics argue that this phrase makes no difference one way or the other, and that the Orthodox are just splitting hairs. The Orthodox argue that it makes a big difference, and that you can't just change the Creed willy-nilly like that.

2. Papal primacy - Catholics believe that one bishop (the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope) is the head of the Church and has universal jurisdiction over other bishops and over all Christians. They also ascribe certain other unique roles to the Pope which no other bishop has. The Orthodox have no such "super-bishop". All bishops are equal. We do have Patriarchs, but they're just regular bishops who happen to be in charge of administrative matters over a certain area (i.e. what gets built and where, which priest gets appointed to which parish, and so on). They don't have any power to decide what Orthodox Christians believe.

3. Development of doctrine - the Catholic Church considers it acceptable to declare new doctrines which were not believed by Catholics in previous times. The Orthodox Church considers this idea to be insulting to God, since it implies that Jesus Christ did not tell us everything we need to know for salvation, but left it up to us to discover new requirements later. In the Orthodox view, while it's certainly possible to develop new opinions (= personal views about non-essential topics, which are not mandatory for all Christians), it is not possible to discover new doctrines (= beliefs that are mandatory for Christians). In other words, you can't impose new rules that weren't around before. All that is essential for salvation was known by the Church from the beginning. The Church may clarify doctrines or rephrase them in words that modern people can understand, but it cannot declare that something which was considered false in the past is to be considered true in the future.

The Orthodox don't just take issue with the Pope having the power to decide new doctrines; we take issue with anyone having that power.

4. Purgatory - The Orthodox do not believe in purgatory. However, the Orthodox Church has not officially condemned the idea of "a place of purification" either, so there are some individual Orthodox who may believe in things somewhat similar to Catholic purgatory.

5. There are also certain differences in the understanding of Original Sin. The Orthodox Church generally views Original Sin (or "Ancestral Sin", as we sometimes call it) as a corrupting influence that made human beings predisposed to sin, but not as something carrying guilt for anyone alive today. Some Catholic and Protestant interpretations argue that present-day humans are guilty of Original Sin (but then again, certain Catholic posters in this thread have occasionally stated that this is not the official Catholic view).

6. The immaculate conception - the Catholic idea that Mary the Mother of God was born without the guilt of Original Sin, unlike all other human beings who are born guilty of Original Sin. The Orthodox reject this. We believe that Mary was born like any other human, and was distinguished only by her actions, not by destiny.

7. "Satisfaction soteriology", or the view of salvation as a type of satisfaction of debt - this is almost universally the view of salvation in Western (Catholic and Protestant) theology. The idea is that sinning is like breaking a law, and God is like a policeman who has a duty to punish you for breaking that law, but there's a loophole (the sacrifice of Christ) which allows you to get away without punishment even though you deserve it. The Protestants really embraced this idea with open arms and took it to the extreme, but the Catholic Church endorses it as well. The Orthodox Church does not outright reject it, but we prefer to view sin more like an addiction or a disease, God more like a doctor, and the sacrifice of Christ more like the medicine that will cure you.

Having said that, we take a more mystical approach to spiritual realities (i.e. we believe that you can't describe them precisely with the words we have in our languages; you can only use metaphors), so therefore we're not opposed to describing the same spiritual reality with several different metaphors. Maybe sin is like debt and like disease, in different ways.

8. Indulgences - today this is not an issue any more, but in previous centuries the Catholic Church taught that it is possible to earn exemptions from purgatory, known as "indulgences" (selling indulgences was a type of political corruption and never part of Catholic doctrine, but indulgences themselves were officially approved - not to be sold, but to be given away for certain merits - and technically they are still allowed, although in practice they no longer exist). The Orthodox reject any suggestion that the Church has the power to guarantee any specific eternal reward to any specific person.

9. Absolute divine simplicity and created grace - these are also Catholic doctrines which the Orthodox reject, although I don't understand them well enough to describe them.

10. Papal infallibility - the idea that, under certain very strict conditions, the Pope has the power to make infallible statements. Obviously, the Orthodox reject any claim of infallibility attached to any one man.

These are the differences of content, or belief. In addition, there are a few differences of style. The Orthodox have a different style of worship, obviously, and our priests can be married. The majority of Orthodox Christians are located in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, the Balkan countries, Greece, and certain Arab countries (most notably Syria). There are, however, Orthodox Christians all over the world, including in North America.

Many Roman Catholics are not even aware of these differences.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

I'm gonna start this right off by saying it's not an attack, and its not gonna turn into one at the end. I'm a friend. I've been in some similar positions and I might be able to offer some insight, but I'm not here to yell at you.

:P And... let's see, the early christians' constant persecution, the apostles' universal martyrdom...
The assassination of Martin Luther King...

You should read the book of Job again, he compensated in this world for his faith. I suppose to you that means he doesn't go to heaven.
I'm not really surprised you aren't familiar with Job, since not a single one of you has displayed even a remedial grasp of the scripture.

You should read the book of Job again, he compensated in this world for his faith. I suppose to you that means he doesn't go to heaven.
I'm not really surprised you aren't familiar with Job, since not a single one of you has displayed even a remedial grasp of the scripture.

What does the fact that he's compensated for it have to do with anything? The reason for his suffering didn't have anything to do with faithlessness, he's explicitly stated to have been an upright man. God is portrayed as allowing Satan to take everything from him completely irrespective of his faith.

Well, no, not quite. We shouldn't strawman Deuxtete's position. I brought up martyrdom before, and Deuxtete argued that God promises to meet our basic needs in life, but makes no promises about death, and also makes no promises about our treatment at the hands of other people. So the only examples that actually refute his claim are examples of Christians being starving or destitute, not examples of Christians being persecuted or killed.

Still, there are literally millions of starving and destitute Christians. He never addressed that.

Now let's take a look at 2 Corinthians 11: 27.
"I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked."
Paul was both starving and destitute, and made a point of telling us so.

Here's the entire interaction we've had from beginning to end. Those three sentences are all I've said to you. Now let's go through your accusations point by point.
1. That I "accused you of all manner of hatefulness." Read through it again, I've put my words in red. Where is the accusation? Which of these sentences contains it?
2. That I "mocked and ignored" posts you made several pages ago. Where are my replies to those posts? Neither one of us has said a word to the other before this page.
3. That I "attacked another Christian for their faith in God's promise to care for his children." Where is this attack? My three sentences are there. Which of them attacks you?
4. That I "ignored the scripture, mocked faith, and attempted to demonstrate that Christ is a liar for pages." How could I have done it for pages, when neither of us has said a word to the other before this page?
Read through the evidence that you did, in fact, just accuse me of all of those things.

And God accounted for his needs.
You, nor your little friend refuted a single word of scripture I posted, with context included...unlike either of you.
You ask me about issues directly answered in scripture I posted pages ago...the ones you mocked and ignored because they don't conform to your world view.

You accuse me of all ma ner of hatefulness... For no other reason than I said God provides, and showed where the scripture says the same thing.
I may not be a good Christian, but I've never attacked another Christian for their faith in God's promise to care for his children.

I'm not debating you, I'm rebuking you.
I don't expect you to do anything but what youve done for pages, ignore the scripture, mock faith, attempt to demonstrate Christ is a liar.

The evidence is right in front of you- it's inescapable that I haven't done any of that. What I have done is disagree with you. I said something that contradicted your belief. And you must understand that this has become the way that you react when someone disagrees with you.
Do you see the protective shield that immediately comes up, convincing you of a dozen things which are indisputably and clearly false, to protect you from the threat of having that belief questioned? And the way you get so angry that you lash out, thinking that you're a victim, when actually you're the only one in the situation resorting to personal attacks and making false accusations about people.

You gotta see that that's a problem. Actually, I know exactly what it is, I've seen it before. Unfortunately it's not uncommon for social gospel groups to use those kinds of methods; I should know, I lived in one of their intentional communities for a year, ending just six months ago. All it means is that somebody did you a big disservice and now it's causing you some problems.

What you gotta understand is that christianity is actually true. That's the crux of it. And since it's actually true, nobody- not a muslim, not an atheist, and not a wrong christian, is a threat to your christianity to listen to. You don't have to fight, and you don't have to know the right arguments. You can listen. Since christianity is the truth, the more you let go and let yourself consider any idea, no matter what the source, on its own merits, without needing to defend anything or come to any conclusion, the more your beliefs will converge upon christianity. That's what reason is.

And way more importantly, there's the whole thing with unconditional love. I can tell that you're feeling pretty bad about the way christians will fight with you on these messageboards: that's made me feel like shit sometimes too. This is still the internet, after all. It's a difficult place to find those meaningful interactions we all want. But here's the thing: the world is fucking huge, man. There are so many more people than we realize, and Christianity is so much bigger and more powerful than our own little circles of it. And in most of the world, unconditional love is done a lot better than it is in our own backyards. We tell ourselves that if we can't be accepted by a particular group, we won't be accepted at all, but there's totally untrue. We only think it's true because it's hard to see outside of our immediate circumstances.

I mean, you can even see it right here. I don't even know you, but I can accept you for who you are. You don't have to agree with me about this or that as a predicate for me to embrace you as a brother. Listen, man: you are uniquely special and uniquely important, and I can say that with complete confidence and no reservations. And you already were before I said anything too. God loves you exactly the way you are. And you're gonna be okay.

We can take this to PMs, but just wanted to throw out my olive branch publicly so everybody knows we're cool.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

3. Development of doctrine - the Catholic Church considers it acceptable to declare new doctrines which were not believed by Catholics in previous times. The Orthodox Church considers this idea to be insulting to God, since it implies that Jesus Christ did not tell us everything we need to know for salvation, but left it up to us to discover new requirements later. In the Orthodox view, while it's certainly possible to develop new opinions (= personal views about non-essential topics, which are not mandatory for all Christians), it is not possible to discover new doctrines (= beliefs that are mandatory for Christians). In other words, you can't impose new rules that weren't around before. All that is essential for salvation was known by the Church from the beginning. The Church may clarify doctrines or rephrase them in words that modern people can understand, but it cannot declare that something which was considered false in the past is to be considered true in the future.

The Orthodox don't just take issue with the Pope having the power to decide new doctrines; we take issue with anyone having that power.

I am no expert, but I do not believe it is permissible in Catholicism to create a new doctrine from thin air. All Catholic doctrines are defined from pre-existing teachings and scriptural sources. Ergo, I don't think it's possible within Catholic teaching for something that was once wrong to become dogmatically right, or vice versa.

5. There are also certain differences in the understanding of Original Sin. The Orthodox Church generally views Original Sin (or "Ancestral Sin", as we sometimes call it) as a corrupting influence that made human beings predisposed to sin, but not as something carrying guilt for anyone alive today. Some Catholic and Protestant interpretations argue that present-day humans are guilty of Original Sin (but then again, certain Catholic posters in this thread have occasionally stated that this is not the official Catholic view).

I believe one of those Catholic posters was me, in my education at a Catholic high school, what I was taught much more closely mirrored the Orthodox position on Original Sin than the supposed Catholic / Protestant one. I'm not sure if this could be because my school was atypical among Catholic schools or not. It is notable that where I live has a fairly sizable Ukrainian Orthodox population, as well as Eastern Rite Catholics. The bishop at my graduation ceremony actually appeared to be an Eastern Rite bishop.

7. "Satisfaction soteriology", or the view of salvation as a type of satisfaction of debt - this is almost universally the view of salvation in Western (Catholic and Protestant) theology. The idea is that sinning is like breaking a law, and God is like a policeman who has a duty to punish you for breaking that law, but there's a loophole (the sacrifice of Christ) which allows you to get away without punishment even though you deserve it. The Protestants really embraced this idea with open arms and took it to the extreme, but the Catholic Church endorses it as well. The Orthodox Church does not outright reject it, but we prefer to view sin more like an addiction or a disease, God more like a doctor, and the sacrifice of Christ more like the medicine that will cure you.

Having said that, we take a more mystical approach to spiritual realities (i.e. we believe that you can't describe them precisely with the words we have in our languages; you can only use metaphors), so therefore we're not opposed to describing the same spiritual reality with several different metaphors. Maybe sin is like debt and like disease, in different ways.

Again, in this case, my education resembled the Orthodox position moreso than the described Catholic one. Sometimes I wonder if my school was Eastern Rite, without my knowing? But would that make a difference? It also seems unlikely because the mass always seemed very western, and pretty informal.

8. Indulgences - today this is not an issue any more, but in previous centuries the Catholic Church taught that it is possible to earn exemptions from purgatory, known as "indulgences" (selling indulgences was a type of political corruption and never part of Catholic doctrine, but indulgences themselves were officially approved - not to be sold, but to be given away for certain merits - and technically they are still allowed, although in practice they no longer exist). The Orthodox reject any suggestion that the Church has the power to guarantee any specific eternal reward to any specific person.

I don't think indulgences are said to be dispensed by the Church in modern times, but rather that earthly virtues can earn one a form of indulgence, in the form of shortening one's time in purgatory by their good deeds. It is also taught that purgatory can be endured during life, that those who suffer more in this life will have a shorter time spent in purgatory.

10. Papal infallibility - the idea that, under certain very strict conditions, the Pope has the power to make infallible statements. Obviously, the Orthodox reject any claim of infallibility attached to any one man.

Do the Orthodox at large have a proper understanding of how Papal Infallibility works? I know it is very common for the concept to be misunderstood.

[Constantinopolis]

Anyway, changing topics to respond to an important question...

I wouldn't call that the main difference, at this point. It was the original difference at the time of the Great Schism when the Churches split, but other differences have accumulated in the mean time, and some of them are arguably more important.

Wasn't the main difference at the time of the schism Papal Supremacy? I mean isn't that kind of way more important

Well yes, that too. And you're right, in terms of its practical effects, Papal Supremacy is far more important. So I should have said that the filioque was one of the two original differences, as opposed to the original difference.

Although, claims to Papal Supremacy were not nearly as strong in the 11th century as they are today. That is to say, the Pope didn't get involved in Church activities around the (known) world nearly as much as he does today. Partly for practical reasons (communications being what they were, you couldn't just call the Pope when a decision had to be made), and partly because there was a stronger tradition of local autonomy, even in the West.

So, from the Orthodox point of view, the whole Papal Supremacy thing has got a lot worse over the past few centuries.

Meanwhile, on another note...

Many church buildings claim to possess splinters of the True Cross, or the nails that Christ was crucified with (such as the nail which was hammered into the circlet of the Iron Crown of Lombardy). Do you guys think any of these claims are true?

There's even a Catholic Church nearby that a friend of mine told me has a shard of the True Cross.

I've always found the idea of such artifacts interesting.

Yes, I firmly believe that some of the claims are true. Or, at the very least, there are real splinters of the cross that St. Helena found being held by various churches around the world.

It is a matter of historical record that St. Helena, the mother of St. Constantine, found a cross during her pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the 320s, which was proclaimed to be the True Cross because miracles were witnessed in its presence. Now, you may deny that it was the True Cross if you wish, but in any case, some cross was found. Part of this cross remained in Jerusalem, and other parts were dispersed across the Roman world as gifts. They were treated with great reverence as precious relics, and over the centuries they were moved around, divided up into ever-smaller pieces, inherited, re-gifted, and occasionally stolen. No doubt many forgeries were made as well, especially in the High Middle Ages, when there was an outright relic-craze in Western Europe. But the important thing is, unless you believe that all of the original pieces systematically disappeared and were entirely replaced by forgeries - a highly unlikely scenario - then some of them must still be around. Some of the fragments currently believed to be of the True Cross must really be fragments of the True Cross; or, like I said, at least the cross that St. Helena originally found.

[The Archregimancy]

Anyway, changing topics to respond to an important question...

I wouldn't call that the main difference, at this point. It was the original difference at the time of the Great Schism when the Churches split, but other differences have accumulated in the mean time, and some of them are arguably more important.

Wasn't the main difference at the time of the schism Papal Supremacy? I mean isn't that kind of way more important

The filioque and Papal Supremacy are separate in theology, but linked in application.

The issue relates both to the theology of the change to the Creed, and the rejection of the right of the Patriarch of Rome to unilaterally declare the validity of that change in the first place.

Saint Photius the Great, that towering intellect of the medieval church (east or west), author of one of the most important historiographical works in medieval Europe, and certainly one of the greatest of Orthodox patriarchs, best articulated the extent to which the issues were intertwined back in the 9th century.

In any case, the Papacy didn't actually get around to adding the filioque to the Creed recited in the Latin mass until Benedict VIII did so in 1014 - a good 150 years after Photius, and only 40 years before the Great Schism. Earlier Popes approved of the doctrine as a theological opinion (rather than full dogma), but quite rightly refused to unilaterally change a Creed codified by a full Ecumenical Council. For example, when Charlemagne falsely (and rather hilariously) accused Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople of heresy for supposedly teaching that the Spirit proceeded solely from the Son (the precise opposite of Orthodox teaching), Pope Leo III not only refused to add the filioque to the Creed recited in Rome, but had two giant silver shields made with the unmodified 381 Creed written in both Greek and Latin, and then displayed them prominently in Saint Peter's with the inscription 'I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith'.

And Benedict VIII didn't finally add the filioque to the Roman Creed in 1014 for theological reasons, but for purely political reasons; when Emperor Henry II deposed antipope Gregory VI and restored Benedict, Henry expressed surprise at the difference between the German and Roman creeds. Benedict took the hint. Dress it up any way you like, but it's not as if Benedict was in a position to argue.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Wasn't the main difference at the time of the schism Papal Supremacy? I mean isn't that kind of way more important

Well yes, that too. And you're right, in terms of its practical effects, Papal Supremacy is far more important. So I should have said that the filioque was one of the two original differences, as opposed to the original difference.

Although, claims to Papal Supremacy were not nearly as strong in the 11th century as they are today. That is to say, the Pope didn't get involved in Church activities around the (known) world nearly as much as he does today. Partly for practical reasons (communications being what they were, you couldn't just call the Pope when a decision had to be made), and partly because there was a stronger tradition of local autonomy, even in the West.

So, from the Orthodox point of view, the whole Papal Supremacy thing has got a lot worse over the past few centuries.

Meanwhile, on another note...

Many church buildings claim to possess splinters of the True Cross, or the nails that Christ was crucified with (such as the nail which was hammered into the circlet of the Iron Crown of Lombardy). Do you guys think any of these claims are true?

There's even a Catholic Church nearby that a friend of mine told me has a shard of the True Cross.

I've always found the idea of such artifacts interesting.

Yes, I firmly believe that some of the claims are true. Or, at the very least, there are real splinters of the cross that St. Helena found being held by various churches around the world.

It is a matter of historical record that St. Helena, the mother of St. Constantine, found a cross during her pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the 320s, which was proclaimed to be the True Cross because miracles were witnessed in its presence. Now, you may deny that it was the True Cross if you wish, but in any case, some cross was found. Part of this cross remained in Jerusalem, and other parts were dispersed across the Roman world as gifts. They were treated with great reverence as precious relics, and over the centuries they were moved around, divided up into ever-smaller pieces, inherited, re-gifted, and occasionally stolen. No doubt many forgeries were made as well, especially in the High Middle Ages, when there was an outright relic-craze in Western Europe. But the important thing is, unless you believe that all of the original pieces systematically disappeared and were entirely replaced by forgeries - a highly unlikely scenario - then some of them must still be around. Some of the fragments currently believed to be of the True Cross must really be fragments of the True Cross; or, like I said, at least the cross that St. Helena originally found.

But why would they be bouncing around the world? Innumerable crosses and other wooden items were made by the roman empire, but overwhelmingly they've simply fallen to the ground and been buried and forgotten, or rotted away. Isn't it more probable that the same fate befell the cross of Christ as the assorted serving utensils of Christ?
Edit: missed the last sentence of your post, I am a silly person.

[Nioya]

I'm a gay Christian.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

I'm a gay Christian.

Then you, sir, are awesome. *leaves cookies.*

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

These are the differences of content, or belief. In addition, there are a few differences of style. The Orthodox have a different style of worship, obviously, and our priests can be married. The majority of Orthodox Christians are located in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, the Balkan countries, Greece, and certain Arab countries (most notably Syria). There are, however, Orthodox Christians all over the world, including in North America.

Could the Orthodox faithful clarify on how do their priests get their wives? Is is that priests can only marry before ordination, and they can be ordained even when married before unlike Catholics? Or, is it that the Orthodox priests can marry even when already ordained? And that, can only priests marry, or can bishops also marry or be bishops when married?

I do not still understand the concept of the Orthodox-priest-can-marry thing, but I'm fully aware it is entirely different from the Catholic concept of celibacy.

[The Archregimancy]

These are the differences of content, or belief. In addition, there are a few differences of style. The Orthodox have a different style of worship, obviously, and our priests can be married. The majority of Orthodox Christians are located in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, the Balkan countries, Greece, and certain Arab countries (most notably Syria). There are, however, Orthodox Christians all over the world, including in North America.

Could the Orthodox faithful clarify on how do their priests get their wives? Is is that priests can only marry before ordination, and they can be ordained even when married before unlike Catholics? Or, is it that the Orthodox priests can marry even when already ordained? And that, can only priests marry, or can bishops also marry or be bishops when married?

I do not still understand the concept of the Orthodox-priest-can-marry thing, but I'm fully aware it is entirely different from the Catholic concept of celibacy.

Priests can only marry before ordination.

An ordained priest cannot marry - and cannot remarry if widowed or divorced.

Bishops must be monks, and therefore celibate by default; but they needn't have been monks or celibates their entire lives, only at the point where they were appointed bishop. There have been widower patriarchs, so when you read historical accounts of patriarchs with children, it's not nearly as scandalous as when the same thing happens with Popes.

One of the more famous examples of a widower patriarch with children is Macarios III of Antioch (1647 to 1672), whose son Paul left an extensive and valuable record of their visit to 17th-century Moscow (where Macarios helped Patriarch Nikon of Moscow with the reforms that would cause the Old Believer schism - he would later help depose Nikon on a subsequent visit) and Eastern Europe. Paul complained vigorously about the amount of time the Russians spent standing up in their interminable church services....

[Idzequitch]

In fact, I hope no one will mind if I repost my explanation of Catholic-Orthodox differences in full, given the fact that it was originally posted in the previous incarnation of the Christian thread after all... So, without further ado:

--- Const's list of doctrinal differences between Catholic and Orthodox Christians ---

First of all, I have to mention that this list is unofficial (obviously), and written from an Orthodox point of view. Catholics tend to claim that the theological differences are extremely small, or maybe even just a matter of misunderstanding (because, in general, the Catholic view is that the two Churches could reunite tomorrow if only the Orthodox weren't so nitpicky and stuborn). The Orthodox claim that the theological differences are more significant, and our view is that they represent a major barrier to any kind of reunification at the moment. But at the same time, obviously, we recognize that we have far more in common with the Catholics than with any Protestant group.

And now for the list itself. The differences are as follows:

1. The Filioque - Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Orthodox say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, although we also accept the phrase "from the Father through the Son". The original Creed stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mentioning the Son, and the Orthodox strictly adhere to the Creed as originally written. The phrase "and the Son" (which in Latin is one word: "filioque") was added in later centuries in the West. Catholics argue that this phrase makes no difference one way or the other, and that the Orthodox are just splitting hairs. The Orthodox argue that it makes a big difference, and that you can't just change the Creed willy-nilly like that.

2. Papal primacy - Catholics believe that one bishop (the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope) is the head of the Church and has universal jurisdiction over other bishops and over all Christians. They also ascribe certain other unique roles to the Pope which no other bishop has. The Orthodox have no such "super-bishop". All bishops are equal. We do have Patriarchs, but they're just regular bishops who happen to be in charge of administrative matters over a certain area (i.e. what gets built and where, which priest gets appointed to which parish, and so on). They don't have any power to decide what Orthodox Christians believe.

3. Development of doctrine - the Catholic Church considers it acceptable to declare new doctrines which were not believed by Catholics in previous times. The Orthodox Church considers this idea to be insulting to God, since it implies that Jesus Christ did not tell us everything we need to know for salvation, but left it up to us to discover new requirements later. In the Orthodox view, while it's certainly possible to develop new opinions (= personal views about non-essential topics, which are not mandatory for all Christians), it is not possible to discover new doctrines (= beliefs that are mandatory for Christians). In other words, you can't impose new rules that weren't around before. All that is essential for salvation was known by the Church from the beginning. The Church may clarify doctrines or rephrase them in words that modern people can understand, but it cannot declare that something which was considered false in the past is to be considered true in the future.

The Orthodox don't just take issue with the Pope having the power to decide new doctrines; we take issue with anyone having that power.

4. Purgatory - The Orthodox do not believe in purgatory. However, the Orthodox Church has not officially condemned the idea of "a place of purification" either, so there are some individual Orthodox who may believe in things somewhat similar to Catholic purgatory.

5. There are also certain differences in the understanding of Original Sin. The Orthodox Church generally views Original Sin (or "Ancestral Sin", as we sometimes call it) as a corrupting influence that made human beings predisposed to sin, but not as something carrying guilt for anyone alive today. Some Catholic and Protestant interpretations argue that present-day humans are guilty of Original Sin (but then again, certain Catholic posters in this thread have occasionally stated that this is not the official Catholic view).

6. The immaculate conception - the Catholic idea that Mary the Mother of God was born without the guilt of Original Sin, unlike all other human beings who are born guilty of Original Sin. The Orthodox reject this. We believe that Mary was born like any other human, and was distinguished only by her actions, not by destiny.

7. "Satisfaction soteriology", or the view of salvation as a type of satisfaction of debt - this is almost universally the view of salvation in Western (Catholic and Protestant) theology. The idea is that sinning is like breaking a law, and God is like a policeman who has a duty to punish you for breaking that law, but there's a loophole (the sacrifice of Christ) which allows you to get away without punishment even though you deserve it. The Protestants really embraced this idea with open arms and took it to the extreme, but the Catholic Church endorses it as well. The Orthodox Church does not outright reject it, but we prefer to view sin more like an addiction or a disease, God more like a doctor, and the sacrifice of Christ more like the medicine that will cure you.

Having said that, we take a more mystical approach to spiritual realities (i.e. we believe that you can't describe them precisely with the words we have in our languages; you can only use metaphors), so therefore we're not opposed to describing the same spiritual reality with several different metaphors. Maybe sin is like debt and like disease, in different ways.

8. Indulgences - today this is not an issue any more, but in previous centuries the Catholic Church taught that it is possible to earn exemptions from purgatory, known as "indulgences" (selling indulgences was a type of political corruption and never part of Catholic doctrine, but indulgences themselves were officially approved - not to be sold, but to be given away for certain merits - and technically they are still allowed, although in practice they no longer exist). The Orthodox reject any suggestion that the Church has the power to guarantee any specific eternal reward to any specific person.

9. Absolute divine simplicity and created grace - these are also Catholic doctrines which the Orthodox reject, although I don't understand them well enough to describe them.

10. Papal infallibility - the idea that, under certain very strict conditions, the Pope has the power to make infallible statements. Obviously, the Orthodox reject any claim of infallibility attached to any one man.

These are the differences of content, or belief. In addition, there are a few differences of style. The Orthodox have a different style of worship, obviously, and our priests can be married. The majority of Orthodox Christians are located in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, the Balkan countries, Greece, and certain Arab countries (most notably Syria). There are, however, Orthodox Christians all over the world, including in North America.

First of all Const, you probably don't remember me, because I was just beginning to get involved in this thread when you left. Regardless, it is awesome to see you and your well thought out posts again. In addition, as an American Protestant, my knowledge of the Eastern Orthodox church is limited. I truly appreciate the chance to learn more about it. based on a glance at this post, it seems that I actually do share several positions with the Orthodox church. It's all interesting stuff, much appreciated.

[LA Cheese]

Short thing on Christian metaphysics: Christianity has borrowed, or can be said to depend on (I am contrasting history with sheer ideas here), the ideas of Platonism. The Christian god is said to be essentially unchanging in nature, which is similar to Plato's notion of god existing in a world without change. However, a notion that Christianity did not cop from Platonism--because it does not fit well with Christian doctrine--is the notion that god, as a perfect entity, does not and cannot have any interactions or concern with the world of change.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

First of all Const, you probably don't remember me, because I was just beginning to get involved in this thread when you left. Regardless, it is awesome to see you and your well thought out posts again. In addition, as an American Protestant, my knowledge of the Eastern Orthodox church is limited. I truly appreciate the chance to learn more about it. based on a glance at this post, it seems that I actually do share several positions with the Orthodox church. It's all interesting stuff, much appreciated.

I agree, I find that most Orthodox doctrines are more agreeable with general Protestant theology and doctrine than that of Catholicism.

One of the more famous examples of a widower patriarch with children is Macarios III of Antioch (1647 to 1672), whose son Paul left an extensive and valuable record of their visit to 17th-century Moscow (where Macarios helped Patriarch Nikon of Moscow with the reforms that would cause the Old Believer schism - he would later help depose Nikon on a subsequent visit) and Eastern Europe. Paul complained vigorously about the amount of time the Russians spent standing up in their interminable church services....

Maybe Paul got used to sitting on pews with the Latin Christians. One thing I find very interesting with the Orthodox style of worship is that, people stand all the time.

[The Archregimancy]

Short thing on Christian metaphysics: Christianity has borrowed, or can be said to depend on (I am contrasting history with sheer ideas here), the ideas of Platonism.

The influence of neo-Platonism on the development of early Christianity is widely acknowledged, has suffused the writing of influential Christian thinkers from Pseudo-Dionysius to Dante, and has been the subject of extensive scholarship for more than a century.

So perhaps try telling us something we don't already know.

[LA Cheese]

So perhaps try telling us something we don't already know.

Did you know that non-local instantaneous causal correlations between the spin-states of spatially distant photons offer proof of simultaneous causation?

Probably not. They don't really cover that shit in humanities PhD programs.

[LA Cheese]

people wonder why there aren't more productive posts on NSG.

User tries to make productive post.

User gets shut down by moderator with lots of experience.

question answered?

[The Archregimancy]

people wonder why there aren't more productive posts on NSG.

User tries to make productive post.

User gets shut down by moderator with lots of experience.

question answered?

You weren't being 'shut down' in my moderator capacity.

I was making the point in a discussion capacity that the general outline of your post was common knowledge to anyone with a basic grasp of Christian theology and history.

If think you can constructively elaborate on your post, feel free.

[LA Cheese]

If think you can constructively elaborate on your post, feel free.

I will. Let me just make sure that anything I talk about has not already been researched, otherwise it would be impertinent to put in a thread for the general public. Of course, it's not as if academics like you have a tendency to overestimate what constitutes "common knowledge"! Sadly, as much as it would be cool for facts about Neo-Platonism and Christianity to be common knowledge, it just isn't always the case. I also wanted to offer a short introduction to the idea just to see if anybody actually cared.

[LA Cheese]

Continuing on, as I hinted towards earlier, there is a conflict between the subject-object distinction and Heidegger's notion of Dasein. The subject-object distinction views us as existing as a subject capable of our own thoughts, surrounded by externally existing entities. In this distinction, the subject can undergo thoughts and emotional states that do not depend on the entities around it. In Heidegger's notion of Dasein, there is, instead, a "worldhood" in which the subject is inextricably bound with the entities around it. The intellectual stakes are high: we need either a radical revision of Christian metaphysics, or we need to dismantle Heidegger's notion of Dasein.

[Bari]

--- Const's list of doctrinal differences between Catholic and Orthodox Christians ---
Catholics tend to claim that the theological differences are extremely small, or maybe even just a matter of misunderstanding (because, in general, the Catholic view is that the two Churches could reunite tomorrow if only the Orthodox weren't so nitpicky and stubborn). The Orthodox claim that the theological differences are more significant, and our view is that they represent a major barrier to any kind of reunification at the moment. But at the same time, obviously, we recognize that we have far more in common with the Catholics than with any Protestant group.

Maybe in the post-conciliar Church this opinion is common among Catholics because of the false irenicism that has become widespread among many Catholics, but, in my opinion, these differences are major, and the Orthodox Church is in the wrong on them. It is not some minor misunderstanding or the Orthodox are being so nitpicky. The Orthodox are, however, in my opinion, stubborn, recalcitrant even, in heresy and in schism, both of which constitute grave matters and, therefore, approach mortal sin, one wherein if a person were to die without any sign of penance, he would be condemned to perdition for eternity.

And now for the list itself. The differences are as follows:

1. The Filioque - Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Orthodox say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, although we also accept the phrase "from the Father through the Son". The original Creed stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mentioning the Son, and the Orthodox strictly adhere to the Creed as originally written. The phrase "and the Son" (which in Latin is one word: "filioque") was added in later centuries in the West. Catholics argue that this phrase makes no difference one way or the other, and that the Orthodox are just splitting hairs. The Orthodox argue that it makes a big difference, and that you can't just change the Creed willy-nilly like that.

Again, Catholics (at least, no good Catholics) do not argue that this difference is insignificant. Why else would we have been defending it for so long? If, as you suggest, it means so little to us, we would not be rigorously defending it as we do.

Also, you should read and, perhaps, respond to my post that I made a while ago, which was quite extensive and demonstrates, from Scripture, from Tradition and from scholastic reasoning, why the procession of the Holy Ghost is from both the Father and the Son from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. And that is quite specific. It's not a double procession. It's not from two sources.

But it's important to note that this is not a change in dogma or doctrine. It is an explicitation of doctrine; that is to say, it is making the doctrine more explicit. It is being more clear as to what the doctrine is. Therefore, if anyone were to suggest that the Catholic Church or anyone simply added this idea to doctrine, he would be wrong, just as one would be wrong to suggest that we created dogma when we said God the Father is the Creator of all things visible and invisible in the Nicene Creed but not in the Apostles' Creed. The truth is, this has always been doctrine; it has always been doctrine that God the Father is the Creator of all things visible and invisible. That doctrine was made more explicit in the Nicene Creed as a response to certain heresies and opinions proximate to or savoring of heresy. This did not change dogma nor did it add to it nor did it create any dogma; it only made existing dogma more explicit.

In a similar vein, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is a more explicit version of the Nicene Creed, which itself is a more explicit version of the Symbol of the Apostles. It did not introduce anything new. It did not revolutionize Christian dogmatic theology. It only made more explicit a principle truth of Christianity in response to a heresy that was presenting itself at the time of the explicitation.

2. Papal primacy - Catholics believe that one bishop (the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope) is the head of the Church and has universal jurisdiction over other bishops and over all Christians. They also ascribe certain other unique roles to the Pope which no other bishop has. The Orthodox have no such "super-bishop". All bishops are equal. We do have Patriarchs, but they're just regular bishops who happen to be in charge of administrative matters over a certain area (i.e. what gets built and where, which priest gets appointed to which parish, and so on). They don't have any power to decide what Orthodox Christians believe.

This is all done for a reason. It's not as though one day some council decided that supreme power in those matters ought to be invested in one man. I can give a more detailed explanation if you want.

3. Development of doctrine - the Catholic Church considers it acceptable to declare new doctrines which were not believed by Catholics in previous times. The Orthodox Church considers this idea to be insulting to God, since it implies that Jesus Christ did not tell us everything we need to know for salvation, but left it up to us to discover new requirements later. In the Orthodox view, while it's certainly possible to develop new opinions (= personal views about non-essential topics, which are not mandatory for all Christians), it is not possible to discover new doctrines (= beliefs that are mandatory for Christians). In other words, you can't impose new rules that weren't around before. All that is essential for salvation was known by the Church from the beginning. The Church may clarify doctrines or rephrase them in words that modern people can understand, but it cannot declare that something which was considered false in the past is to be considered true in the future.

The Orthodox don't just take issue with the Pope having the power to decide new doctrines; we take issue with anyone having that power.

This is a gross and false mischaracterization and generalization of Catholic theology and the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church in no way considers it acceptable to introduce dogma. Dogma is revealed only by God. The Church has condemned what you are describing multiple times as heresy. If it serves you best to ignore that history so you can make a point, then maybe you need to reconsider how "right" you really are in this matter.

The Catholic Church is making more explicit, as I stated earlier, dogma that has always existed and that has always been held in the same purport since it was divinely revealed to the Apostles by God Himself whether through Sacred Scripture or through Sacred Tradition but always through the deposit of faith. God did reveal to us everything we need to know for salvation, but He did, however, reveal some of the articles in less than clear manners, hence there are disagreements over even the most basic of Christian dogma.

Also, you are conflating doctrine with dogma, which, at least in Catholic terminology, are not one and the same.

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church does not believe it is possible to "discover new doctrine". She has never claimed to do so. And, as you stated yourself, the Church is clarifying existing dogma; it has never declared true what was once considered false in the past. That would be heresy, known as modernism. According to whom is it heresy? According to the Catholic Church, who denounces in the most strong of terms the very thing of which you accuse her.

4. Purgatory - The Orthodox do not believe in purgatory. However, the Orthodox Church has not officially condemned the idea of "a place of purification" either, so there are some individual Orthodox who may believe in things somewhat similar to Catholic purgatory.

As with the supremacy of the Pope, there are also reasons behind this dogma.

5. There are also certain differences in the understanding of Original Sin. The Orthodox Church generally views Original Sin (or "Ancestral Sin", as we sometimes call it) as a corrupting influence that made human beings predisposed to sin, but not as something carrying guilt for anyone alive today. Some Catholic and Protestant interpretations argue that present-day humans are guilty of Original Sin (but then again, certain Catholic posters in this thread have occasionally stated that this is not the official Catholic view).

You acknowledge the fact that it's not Catholic doctrine that persons inherit any form of original guilt for the sin of Adam, yet you feel compelled to post it in this list concerning Catholic doctrine anyways? The Catholic Church has made it very clear that no one bears any form of guilt for Original Sin but Adam and Eve. "Original sin is called 'sin' only in an analogical sense: it is a sin 'contracted' and not 'committed' - a state and not an act. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".

6. The immaculate conception - the Catholic idea that Mary the Mother of God was born without the guilt of Original Sin, unlike all other human beings who are born guilty of Original Sin. The Orthodox reject this. We believe that Mary was born like any other human, and was distinguished only by her actions, not by destiny.

This is a misunderstanding on your part of Catholic theology. I can discuss this further at a later time.

8. Indulgences - today this is not an issue any more, but in previous centuries the Catholic Church taught that it is possible to earn exemptions from purgatory, known as "indulgences" (selling indulgences was a type of political corruption and never part of Catholic doctrine, but indulgences themselves were officially approved - not to be sold, but to be given away for certain merits - and technically they are still allowed, although in practice they no longer exist). The Orthodox reject any suggestion that the Church has the power to guarantee any specific eternal reward to any specific person.

You are downright wrong if you think indulgences no longer exist, even if just in practice. I don't know where you heard that, but you can get an indulgence for merely making the Sign of the Cross. Just read this book, and you will see many actions have an indulgence attached to them in some manner. To say they rarely are granted today is utterly wrong.

Indulgences also are not eternal rewards either, so the Church is not guaranteeing any eternal award to anyone by granting indulgences.

10. Papal infallibility - the idea that, under certain very strict conditions, the Pope has the power to make infallible statements. Obviously, the Orthodox reject any claim of infallibility attached to any one man.

Again, there are reasons for this belief.

[Herskerstad]

I agree, I find that most Orthodox doctrines are more agreeable with general Protestant theology and doctrine than that of Catholicism.

Even in regards to so my limited exposure to talking to a few knowledgeable Orthodox friends have revealed considerable issues, most of them revolving around a council in Jerusalem. 'Essentially their trent' and some of the general circus of the even in regards to the Ottoman and Latin influences, not to mention not inviting any of the leading reformers outside of the Greek world into the general doctrinal discussions. With the more general interactions I've had I've had the general notion is that it's not a hill to die upon, and some comfort in church authority while not attributing the same standards of moral certainty to all church decisions, at least a certain point historically speaking.

Though, I've got a secret weapon which I'd be willing to make rules of and even stream for ecumenical reasons.



Little do they know the dicerolls are predestined.

[Mostrov]

Hopefully I may add a few points here and there for both mutual understanding and questioning. I am quite pleased at your return.

3. Development of doctrine - the Catholic Church considers it acceptable to declare new doctrines which were not believed by Catholics in previous times. The Orthodox Church considers this idea to be insulting to God, since it implies that Jesus Christ did not tell us everything we need to know for salvation, but left it up to us to discover new requirements later. In the Orthodox view, while it's certainly possible to develop new opinions (= personal views about non-essential topics, which are not mandatory for all Christians), it is not possible to discover new doctrines (= beliefs that are mandatory for Christians). In other words, you can't impose new rules that weren't around before. All that is essential for salvation was known by the Church from the beginning. The Church may clarify doctrines or rephrase them in words that modern people can understand, but it cannot declare that something which was considered false in the past is to be considered true in the future.

The Orthodox don't just take issue with the Pope having the power to decide new doctrines; we take issue with anyone having that power.

Why were the councils regarded as capable of forming new doctrine? After all their exclusion of various parties is a historical fact, so it cannot be that it was a complete incidence of Christian unity. I suppose this is more in regards to the concepts of infallibilty, which I find odd that the Eastern Orthodox reject whilst speaking of the sacred tradition in similar language. This is what I admit I am most interested in finding out, wherever I look for a satisfactory answer it is usually vague and given the rather vacillating concerning later councils validity, as a understandable hesitation too make committal statements concerning the matter.

7. "Satisfaction soteriology", or the view of salvation as a type of satisfaction of debt - this is almost universally the view of salvation in Western (Catholic and Protestant) theology. The idea is that sinning is like breaking a law, and God is like a policeman who has a duty to punish you for breaking that law, but there's a loophole (the sacrifice of Christ) which allows you to get away without punishment even though you deserve it. The Protestants really embraced this idea with open arms and took it to the extreme, but the Catholic Church endorses it as well. The Orthodox Church does not outright reject it, but we prefer to view sin more like an addiction or a disease, God more like a doctor, and the sacrifice of Christ more like the medicine that will cure you.

Having said that, we take a more mystical approach to spiritual realities (i.e. we believe that you can't describe them precisely with the words we have in our languages; you can only use metaphors), so therefore we're not opposed to describing the same spiritual reality with several different metaphors. Maybe sin is like debt and like disease, in different ways.

This of course originates with the unity of various intellectual traditions that saw its first flowering in Hippo Regius. Its better understood as 'logical' rather than as described as 'satisfaction' for the simple fact that it is rooted in the origins of scholasticism and its rejection by the Orthodox as too removed from the concept of 'faith' as well as development of doctrine and that follows from prior the rejection of Aristotelianism.

I don't think that the two views are fundamentally reconcilable, as the precepts of both deny each other. You would change the character of the vast majority of theology on both sides, as these provide the groundings for their respective concepts of epistemology. This might seem relatively insignificant, but it can be roughly spoken of in terms of how each side understands reality with both sides claiming that their perception of the divine is the only one and that the other is heterodox.

Perhaps I will write something at length about this if I have the inclination, but unfortunately my time is quite limited as I write.

9. Absolute divine simplicity and created grace - these are also Catholic doctrines which the Orthodox reject, although I don't understand them well enough to describe them.

Mainly speaking of Divine Simplicity, this largely originated from the Middle-ages and the development of logic in western europe, hence the later doctrinal innovation so shunned. Its quite possible that this is merely the result of poorly equivocated statements, in which translation of particular terminology is imprecise. The basis of this train of thought is however explicitly rejected which undermines this as I understand it.

A decent beginning, as it is for most of western philosopy albeit a little dense at times focusing on its various arguments for and against. Of course I find it utterly compelling, but that is explicitly an exercise to the reader.

---

Short thing on Christian metaphysics: Christianity has borrowed, or can be said to depend on (I am contrasting history with sheer ideas here), the ideas of Platonism. The Christian god is said to be essentially unchanging in nature, which is similar to Plato's notion of god existing in a world without change. However, a notion that Christianity did not cop from Platonism--because it does not fit well with Christian doctrine--is the notion that god, as a perfect entity, does not and cannot have any interactions or concern with the world of change.

There was a reason that the 'rational' god of Neo-Platonism was discarded by the world, as were most it not all mystery-cults which we in today's age of modernity we might regard as more tolerant and suitable from a secular perspective (why self-professed atheists have such strong views on how religions which they are not part of should be organised is perhaps another matter). The confessions are probably the best source for this from a historical and philosophical perspective.