www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox vs. Catholic - differences

The viewpoint currently being given by Rome and many priests (like my own) seems to be that aside from the role of the Pope there are no real theological differences between Catholic and Orthodox.

However, Catholic says you cannot remarry after a valid marriage whereas Orthodox will marry someone up to 3 times.

Catholic says contraception is a sin while Orthodox widely allow it for various reasons.

So... why do most priests say there are no such theological differences when there do appear to be several points of disagreement? Why not just admit there are such differences?

The Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches agree upon 99.99% of Church doctrine, yet we continue to get hung up on the difference of 0.01%.

Its like two brothers arguing over who has the better jump shot when both of them average over 20 points a game.

JP

Well, that is a very big issue. It is THE Theological difference that is the root of all differences between the Catholics and the Orthodox.

Dear Eric Myers and Mr. McNabb ("son of the Abbot!")

The moral issues do indeed show some differences.

The Orthodox will allow remarriage ONLY after a panel of bishops/clergy have reviewed individual cases in accordance with the canons that were in place, in fact, in the first millennium.

RC's, however, will assign a psychologist to assess a couple having trouble - and on the strength of his or her report, a "marriage tribunal" (excuse me while I cough!) will "annul" the marriage, affirming it was never valid in the first place!

I prefer the Orthodox position! I think the contemporary RC position is hypocritical!

Don't you agree?

And, up here, RC's are not only known to "follow their own consciences" with respect to artificial birth control, but also with respect to abortions.

I've consulted with several RC clergy who have told me that they will absolve those who use ABC, knowing full well they will use it again, despite the Church prohibition against it.

So perhaps there really arent' such great differences after all?

Alex

The problem is a lack of faith amoung many Catholics, clergy and lay people (this includes some of the Bishops IMO).

Maybe I'm an idealist. I prefer not to look at the annulment process in a sceptical way. I think a distinction needs to be drawn between theology and canon law. Yes, it merges, such as in the differing views of priests in the marriage sacrament, but I think a lot of the tradition in the Western CHurch is as much a product of the cultural setting it developed in. Even Italians do not have quite the same view of marriage etc. as Anglo/Irish Europeans. Very noticeable in Aust. in the differences between Adelaide (Italian) and Melbourne (Irish heritage). A lot of the RC issue I think is a remnant of Jansenism, and my understanding is that the whole church wedding thing for common people is a Medieval development in the West, which began around the time priestly celibabcy became an enforced matter. Is that correct in people's view?

N

Dear Ned,

The problem is that when marital breakdown occurs, both the RC and Orthodox Churches will deal with it pastorally as best as they can.

The fact is that the way the RC church in North America especially handles marital breakdown is actually more "liberal" in nature than how the Orthodox do it.

So what if the RC Church says such and such about the indissolubility of marriage?

One would think that meant that once you are married, you are married for life, period - ensuring that all requisite conditions are met.

But when you have hundreds, even thousands of annulments granted by church authorities each year - who are they kidding?

The fact is that the hierarchy sanctions those grants of annulment and the hierarchy is empowered to do so.

But is this not divorce by another name?

All I'm saying is that whenever I hear RC's appearing to be "holier than the Orthodox" on these matters, it should be tempered by a realistic view with respect to how your Church puts its canon law into practice.

Alex

Well, I agree that annullments are being used to achieve the end of allowing divorce and re-marriage. No matter what the official party line is, I agree with you that this is divorce and remarriage by another name.

Ref. birth control: laity in both churches use it. However, the RC does steadfastly say it's wrong while the EO simply allow it outright and in so many words.

Possibly the problem is the language used. Are the Orthodox talking about divorce as it is understood in western countries today. Are re realying on translations of words and interpretation of the meanings that closer examination reveal them to be inacurate.

I have just started a book on annulments by Michael Smith Foster from Paulist Press and it has cleared up some of my misunderstandings about what is a valid marriage and the process for an annulment.

ICXC
NIKA

Go check it out!

I think the other issue is the fact that a lot of nominal Catholics, and Orthodox I guess but can't say from firsthand experience, have church weddings or nuptial masses for family/cultural reasons, but don't actually treat them as sacramental themselves, go to mass as a couple, etc. A RC priest who actually has worked on the tribunal in Melbourne told me that in his view the Church should get out of most weddings, as in a lot of cases he felt like a civil celebrant with a nice building. As a first step, we should be far more cautious than we are about marrying people who live together before being married. That measure on its own would cut the annulment/divorce rate by half as it is. As in many other things the Churches are told they're wrong on, I suspect the problem is less the church than the society they live in.

N

Ned,
You raise several great points.
I know SO MANY people who never go to church.
They will tell you they don't agree with church, etc..
But they of course, want the fancy wedding. They want to make "grandpa and grandma" feel happy, etc..
They'll go to mass/worship service enough to please the pastor, show up a few times after the wedding and then it is back to normal.
I've got many stories that hit this point on the head.
I've also found out though if a priest/pastor denies marriage to a couple, the next thing they'll do is get it done in a civil setting (courthouse, etc.. or they find a pastor/priest that they can fool into marrying them).
But the question is, if the couple aren't practicing Christians and do not have intentions of continuing to be Christians (follow Christ's teachings and live the Gospels) then why offer them a Christian wedding?
Being Christian is more than just saying you are, you have to believe it and practice it and worship God.
So if a couple isn't committed to the above are they practicing Christians?
If no, then why should they want a Christian wedding?
I am sure that a response could be that
A) they are trying, they've come to church for a reasonable period of time. But you have to get to the heart of the matter, root out and see if the couple is honest..
Actually, I can think of more responses, such as
It is the Christian thing to do, marry them, it might keep them at church.
Well, once again is this their intentions? To stay active Christians, to actually BELIEVE in Marriage as set forth in the Deposit of Faith.

Ok, I'm off the soap box now.

We also dont know what they will do in the future either. At some point they may discover the faith that they parted company previously and all may be well. As an article of faith we have to assume that as people have the potential to change they just might do it and change (for the better) at some stage.

ICXC
NIKA

I recall St. Alphonsus Ligouri once said something along the lines of a soul in sin can't sustain prayer. They will either repent, or abandon prayer. If someone entering a religious order has to spend at least a period of a year in postulancy/novitiate, surely marriage, an equally significant commitment demands the same care. If a couple HAD to, as opposed to were advised to do a pre-marriage program offered by a diocese, and attend a parish for a period prior to a church wedding, similar to a postualncy this would help. Of cpourse nothing is perfect, going by the amount of people who are dispensed from solemn vows thesedays, but nothing could be worse than current practice.

N

Dear Eric,

Well, the Orthodox Churches do NOT simply condone artificial birth control and that is not the case - at best it misrepresents the actual situation in Orthodox moral teaching.

If I were Orthodox, I would follow the advice of my Confessor and Bishop in this and other matters. In no wise would they say "go ahead, do artificial birth control, it's all right."

In the same way, I have spoken to a number of Catholic priests with doctorates in canon law and theology about artificial birth control.

In EVERY case, the priest as confessor (one of them is today a bishop) told me that he would take into consideration the circumstances of a penitent's life regarding artificial birth control and would, in no wise, condemn such a one for using it or refuse absolution etc.

They have also said that many Catholics use artificial birth control without giving it a second thought or without considering it a sin. They are in "invincible ignorance" and are in good standing with the Church as a result.

Frankly, in this matter as well, I prefer the more honest moral approach of the Orthodox Church.

Don't you?

I don't see this as a matter to justify the continued separation of the Churches. In a unified Church, there would still be Christians, East and West, who would use artificial birth control, procure church-approved separations from spouses and marry again etc. What's in a name?

Alex