Catholic vs Orthodox: What's the difference?

[timtofly]

Why did it become a state religion then?

 

[Jehoshua]

Because the sovereigns of the day, and the societies being of a certain religion made it so.

Until modern times the idea of a "separation of Church and State" simply did not exist, it would of been seen as absurd for the government to NOT support or hold an official religion. As such official recognition of the Christianity as a state religion by governments was an inevitable outcome in consideration of the mentality of the period. Indeed we see this even after Westphalia with the Cuius Religio, Eius Religio understanding between Catholic and protestant rulers.

 

[Ajidica]

If seminary enrollment dropped post VaticanII, then all else being equal, VaticanII clearly had something to do with VaticanII. If however VaticanII did not cause a drop in seminary enrollment rates and it was due to a completely different reason (such as Star Trek airing) then why use VaticanII as a timestamp rather than just refer to erollment falling during the 60's, or returning to the pre-sixties high?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Certain things just become timestamps on their own. World War Two, Nine Years War, World War One, American Independence.
Vatican II was so big for Roman Catholicism it's common to break up time into periods around it even subconsciously.

 

[Plotinus]

In the Catholic church, doctrines are changed with the word of the Pope. Is there any method to universally change the doctrines of the entire Eastern Orthodox community?

As Jehoshua said, Catholic doctrine cannot be changed (at least, Catholic doctrine says it can't be changed) - it's merely explained more clearly. That's what the Pope can do.

Both Catholic and Orthodox churches believe that when the church speaks with its own voice, it does so infallibly because the Holy Spirit speaks through it. Both of them believe that this occurs when an ecumenical council takes place. However, they disagree regarding which councils are ecumenical. Also, the Catholic Church (since the nineteenth century) also believes that there are certain occasions when the Pope does this too. Although not all Catholics agree which these occasions are.

So the only Orthodox equivalent to an infallible pronouncement by the Pope in Catholicism is an infallible pronouncement by an ecumenical council. But the Orthodox recognise only seven such councils, the last one being Nicaea II in 787. There could in theory be more, but there just haven't been.

 

[anandus]

I thought both Catholic and Orthodox churches have so-called synods to determine their doctrines?
I don't know how often these happen (yearly?), but that's how I thought that's the way doctrines are formed?

 

[Jehoshua]

An ecumenical council is sort of like a synod of all the worlds bishops, only in an ecumenical council can the dogmata be developed. Below that you have plenary councils and provincial councils which deal with matters administrative or in regards to applications of doctrine on specific questions which are meetings of the episcopates of entire nations or of an ecclesiastical province respectively.

There is also Synods convened by the Pope as a transitory meeting. So in recent times there has been synod of middle eastern bishops and a synod of african bishops. However again these do not really deal with doctrine but administrative and applicative issues within their defined spheres, and in the case of this kind of synod it does not issue decrees, unless in certain cases the Pope authorizes it to do so, and even then an assembly's decision requires ratification by the Pope. They serve rather more to contemplate the issues they have been convened to address and then make proposals for the Popes consideration.

If seminary enrollment dropped post VaticanII, then all else being equal, VaticanII clearly had something to do with VaticanII. If however VaticanII did not cause a drop in seminary enrollment rates and it was due to a completely different reason (such as Star Trek airing) then why use VaticanII as a timestamp rather than just refer to erollment falling during the 60's, or returning to the pre-sixties high?

because the broad ideological trends which are responsible for that drop in vocations (and in faith generally in the Church) were unleashed by those who held them in the years directly after the council, USING the council itselfas a touchstone to justify their rebellion under the "spirit of vatican II", nevermind what the council actually said.

It is true The Council did not "cause" the drop in seminary enrolment, what caused it was developing long before the council, but the council does serve to differentiate the period where the storm broke precisely because the time where all the corruption bubbled to the surface coincided with it, and because it was used as justification for many of the practices that went on, and still go on in many places to this day (although fortunately the tide is turning, but thats another story and you can go trawl the statistics for yourself if your really interested).

 

[Leoreth]

No I did not say that, I said they were higher before the Second Vatican Council which is a statistical fact. I suggest that you not try and say that I said things that never came off my keyboard.

No need to react so aggressively. You might have noticed I phrased it as a question. Because you seemed to have a reason to single out he Second Vatican Council as a point of comparison.

 

[Tahuti]

Because the sovereigns of the day, and the societies being of a certain religion made it so.

Until modern times the idea of a "separation of Church and State" simply did not exist, it would of been seen as absurd for the government to NOT support or hold an official religion. As such official recognition of the Christianity as a state religion by governments was an inevitable outcome in consideration of the mentality of the period. Indeed we see this even after Westphalia with the Cuius Religio, Eius Religio understanding between Catholic and protestant rulers.

Wasn't the church to some extent even more powerful than any state?

 

[Dachs]

Wasn't the church to some extent even more powerful than any state?

You might be creating a false dichotomy, there. The church in many ways was an instrument of the state over much of Europe.

 

[Tahuti]

You might be creating a false dichotomy, there. The church in many ways was an instrument of the state over much of Europe.

I'm not disputing that. Discounting things such as antipopes and Henri VIII and the like, there wasn't really a battle between the state on one side, and the church on another.

 

[Cutlass]

It seems to me that the Catholic experience in the US is that the church does very little on the modern era to keep young adults involved in the church. Once Confirmation is past and catechism is over, other than being expected to go to mass once a week, there is nothing keeping young people involved. And I can't help but think that that plays a huge role in the lack of deep commitment to the church by that generation of people raised in the church. And without that deep commitment by the young adults, that has to effect the numbers of people willing to dedicate themselves to the life of a priest.

 

[Dachs]

I'm not disputing that. Discounting things such as antipopes and Henri VIII and the like, there wasn't really a battle between the state on one side, and the church on another.

So the obvious conclusion is that meaningfully distinguishing the power of the state from the power of the church is a dubious exercise, and that comparing them is even more ridiculous.

 

[Jehoshua]

@ Cutlass

Your writing as if its the Church's responsibility to get young people "involved", rather its the young peoples duty to get themselves involved in the faith and participate themselves in the community. The idea that the Church is there to get you "involved", as if it is there to provide some amusements is simply false. The Church is not there to amuse people, or make them feel good. Furthermore I might add that separating young people from the rest of the parish community is not how its supposed to be either. Indeed all the young Catholics (as in practicing) I know don't need to be accomadated or "included", since an orthodox faith speaks for itself.

Regardless the decline as I said is quite attributable to certain trends that bubbled to the surface in the years after vatican 2. These trends decimated traditional catholic parish and family life within which a Catholic is supposed to live in, and in following the trends of the world the places where this occured (much of the west) made church irrelevant to their children since church simply became something you went too on sunday, and even then you were bombarded with weak sermons and crappy music. Where an orthodox Catholic parish and family life remains however, that is where you see the young people because holiness, real reverent worship, and strong teaching does not go out of fashion like 60's style guitar music, and the families there incorporate the faith into everything they do, ergo its a way of life. Indeed this sort of thing occurs in protestantism as well, where religion is watered down and teaching adulterated those protestant communities are dying, where teaching is strong and firm, and where the worship of God is the focus (compared to the human-centred focus on "community") those groups are stronger.

I recall here the dichotomy I saw in one parish, which had mass both in the extraordinary form and in the ordinary form (latin mass and an english mass). In the english mass there was only one family with children, a number of older folk, and no young adults (save myself) and the church itself was mostly empty. In the latin mass only one hour later the place was filled with young adults and young families and some people had to stand in the back since the pews were full. The attitude was also tangibly different, before the english mass there was chit chat in the church, before the latin mass the entire community was praying the rosary together, and once the mass finished after singing some hymns and praying the prayer of St Michael together everyone before the community went to a place nearby for morning tea.

 

[Traitorfish]

Your writing as if its the Church's responsibility to get young people "involved", rather its the young peoples duty to get themselves involved. The idea that the Church is there to get you "involved", as if it is there to provide some amusements is simply false. The Church is not there to amuse people, or make them feel good.

If the Church isn't there to make people feel good, then what bloody use it is to anyone?

 

[Dachs]

If the Church isn't there to make people feel good, then what bloody use it is to anyone?

EDIT: Didn't have the balls to keep this up here. Delete please.

 

[Jehoshua]

If the Church isn't there to make people feel good, then what bloody use it is to anyone?

the Church exists to save souls.

I think that sexual deviants have found the organization extremely useful.

and they should have a millstone tied around their collective necks and be thrown into the sea. The faithful hate those people who have entered into the clerical state and betrayed their sacred vows as much as everyone, if not more. However the faithful do dislike the usage of these deviants to attack the entire Church, especially when the truth is it is not only a Catholic problem and occured/occurs often at far higher levels in other institutions. Examples include the US public school system for one, and the recent scandals (which the media in the US has surprise surprise not focused that much on) of perversion amongst jewish rabbis. Sexual immorality amongst protestant ministers is also ignored, and statistically there rates are higher than in the Catholic Church.

Now of course this does not justify what the priests in question did, and most certainly does not justify the failure of certain bishops to appropriately deal with those priests when they found out what was going on. But again using this problem as a club to attack everything in the Church and everything it says and does grates on the faithful and is simply using this scandal to attack anything the Church says even if it has nothing to do with the problem.

 

[Traitorfish]

the Church exists to save souls.

Is being saved not supposed to feel good?

 

[Tahuti]

So the obvious conclusion is that meaningfully distinguishing the power of the state from the power of the church is a dubious exercise, and that comparing them is even more ridiculous.

It isn't that obvious. It may just as well mean that the church was so powerful, few states dared oppose it.

 

[Cutlass]

@ Cutlass

Your writing as if its the Church's responsibility to get young people "involved", rather its the young peoples duty to get themselves involved in the faith and participate themselves in the community.

the Church exists to save souls.

You've directly contradicted yourself here. If the church exists to save souls, and the souls are saved through the church, then clearly it is the church's reponsibility to work at keeping people involved in the church. Many protestant churches, particularly evangelicals, and Mormons, work at keeping their young adults involved in day to day, week to week, participation in at least something that the churches are sponsoring. As a result these people become adults much more committed to all aspects of the churches. Catholics, on the other hand, drift away because there is nothing beyond their own motivations keeping them involved.

Clearly if the church is not happy with this outcome, it is their responsibility to do something about it.