Catholic or Orthodox, which is worse?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Orthodox will argue that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism have more in common with each other than either does with Orthodoxy. Certainly Protestantism and Romanism favour scholasticism, while Orthodoxy doesn't try to explain certain things like the change of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist.

One problem with the Orthodox is that they deny that Christ died on the cross to pay our sin debt. They shy away from our use of a legal metaphor and instead focus on a medical one, that is, Christ came to heal humanity, and they point to the fact that the Greek word σῴζω (sozo) means both 'to save' and 'to heal'. This is from an Orthodox web site designed to introduce Orthodoxy to complete beginners: "God became Man to heal humanity. By taking our humanity to Himself in the Incarnation he entered a process of redemption which culminated in the resurrection, death being destroyed and the reign of sin ended, (St. Irenaeus). The goal of salvation is deification, union with God.

I would say ultimately that Roman Catholicism is worse than Orthodoxy as it specifically denies salvation by faith alone in the anathemas of the Council of Trent. The Orthodox church has never formally defined that salvation is not by faith alone, although they definitely teach and practice it. I remember listening to an Orthodox priest who was a former Protestant say that faith is a process that involves repenting and reception of the sacraments, thus redefining faith.
 
It seems to me that many are concluding that Catholicism is worse because it's heresies are clearly defined while the Orthodox tend to be exasperatingly vague. I am not certain, however, that the latter is preferable over the former. I would rather heretics clearly identify themselves.
 
Sounds to me like the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically a Pope-less version of the Pre-Tridentine Roman Church.

Specifically in this regard: Her Heresises are extant, but uncodified.
 
Sounds to me like the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically a Pope-less version of the Pre-Tridentine Roman Church.

Specifically in this regard: Her Heresises are extant, but uncodified.

It's actually more akin to the church before Anselm. Orthodoxy never had an Abelard.
 
For a real recovery of biblical religion within the Eastern order of churches, something would have to "happen" within EO--a grouping which which is a loose union of autocephalic (mostly ethnic/national) churches--a happening that in some way corresponded to the Reformation in the West.

The idea seems quite impossible for me to conceive in the current context; and yet, perhaps Luther was impossible to conceive for many. Yet he "happened," and a miracle ensued. So, besides more western missionary labor to spread religion with the Bible as the final authority, we should pray for some sort of revival of faith-and-learning for Eastern Christians within that tradition that brings a desire to conform to Scripture--even when it challenges entrenched, unbiblical tradition.

The Reformation was a preaching revival. Was Chrysostom (d. A.D. 407) the last time there was a tremendous, exegetical voice in the East? As long as the real need people think they have is for a sacramental treadmill, there can be no decisive turn back to a Word-based religion, ears desperate for a Promise to believe in. The idea of infusion of religious medicine-like-a-substance feeds man's innate works righteousness lust.


Personally, on the subject of the OP, it doesn't seem to me a proper sort of question. It seems on the order of (if you will pardon my opinion) "Which is a better fruit: apples or oranges?" There are real similarities; however the differences are profound as well. Then, if there is a branch-off stock related to one of them more nearly than the other, how does this affect the question when "better" is now compared to the third and preferred fruit?
 
Personally, on the subject of the OP, it doesn't seem to me a proper sort of question. It seems on the order of (if you will pardon my opinion) "Which is a better fruit: apples or oranges?" There are real similarities; however the differences are profound as well. Then, if there is a branch-off stock related to one of them more nearly than the other, how does this affect the question when "better" is now compared to the third and preferred fruit?

This is how I have approached the issue in my mind. As awful as Catholicism is, it would be more welcoming from what I have come across. Yet they have enshrined heresy. While in Orthodoxy they think quite differently and not being Slavic or Greek, I'd be a second class citizen in the congregation.
Which would you pick if you had to convert? Thank God it does not come down to that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top