Expert: Marco - 6/18/2010

Question
QUESTION: Hi, how  do we know Roman Catholicism is the true religion, and not lets say Islam for exmaple or Orthodox,

thank you

ANSWER: Dear Ramiro,

of course believing in one religion and rejecting all the other ones is an inner and personal fact.
The reason why I believe in the catholic faith is because I find this faith fully convincing.
I think however that there are some important objective and rational arguments supporting the christian faith.

The christian faith is a unique religion from many angles.
In the times when peoples used to worship many gods, represented with anthropomorphic idols, usually associated with natural elements, there were only one monotheistic people who worshipped one God of Spirit and rigorously prohibited any representations of God. This monotheistic concept of God has appeared in history through the jews and every monotheistic religion cannot but acknowledge its roots in the Bible.
There is another importatnt objective element to be considered. Through christianity, an absolutely new concept of divine love has come into history: the concept of a God who loves us so much that He makes Himself man and accepts an atrocious suffering and death in order to save us from our sinful and unhappy existence and lead us to the true and eternal happiness. Such a great concept of love cannot but come from God Himself. The greatness of this concept of divine love is to me the most convincing argument proving the divine nature of Christ.

Why did Jesus have to suffer on the Cross?

I think this is the most impostant question!

I believe that each of us needed know that God was willing to accept such a terrible suffering for us, in order to really trust God. Every man needed that proof of love, and God, who knew this, has accepted to give him what man consciously or unconsciously asked to Him. Jesus had to suffer and die that way to convince us about God's goodness and God's love towards us. It is man's obstinate distrust against God that has forced God to give man that proof of love, the proof he needed to trust God. By His death on the cross, Jesus destroys our distrust and our doubts, and He gives us the strength to believe in Him and trust Him. This means that each of us is personally responsible of Jesus ' sufferings and death. This distrust, this lack of faith in God is just the essence of the original sin. Christ's Passion has reconciled us to God because it has uprooted from our heart, our distrust and doubts about God; it has satisfied our (conscious or unconscious) desire and need of a proof of love, so that it has given us the strength to trust God and feel loved by Him. I can summarize my thoughts as follows: Salvation implies a deep change of ourselves. God has the power to change us but He wants to do that with our consent. Man cannot really accept to be changed by God and he cannot be in comunion with God as long as even a shadow of doubt and distrust remains in his heart ( it must be stressed that such a distrust may exist even without the man is aware of it, at the unconscious level). God had to destroy every shadow of doubt and distrust in our heart and He has chosen to give us the greatest proof of love that may exist: Christ's Passion.


There are also rational arguments from history which supports the christian faith.
Jesus did several powerful miracles to prove that He was the Son of God.
He gave also the power to the apostoles to do powerful miracles.
Even if we cannot see these miracles I think that it is possible to prove through logics
that these miracles really happened.
First of all, Jesus was killed by the pharisees because many jews believed that He was the Messiah.
The Jews believed in powerfull miracles, and they expected that the Messiah
would have been greater than Moses and all the prophets, who did very powerful
miracles.
If Jesus had not given powerful miracolous signs, nobody would have believed in Him,
and the pharisees would not need kill Him.
The hypotesis that Jesus could have been  a phylosopher is in strong contradiction with the jewish culture;
jews believed that wisdom can come only from God.
No jew would have become a follower of a phylosopher; no phylosopher has ever existed among the jews, but only prophets; in particular, the jews were waiting for the Messiah.

Christianity spread very rapidly among many different peoples, languages, cultures and religions,
in spite of terrible persecutions against christians.
This fact is unique in the history.
In 64 dC (that is about thirty years after Jesus' death) the roman imperator Nero
ordered the first great persecution of christians because he saw in Christianity a menace for the roman empire.
Many other great persecutions of christians were ordered by the roman imperators until 311 dC.
All these persecutions are very well proved by non-christian sources.
In 112 dC, Plinium (a non-christian roman) in a letter to the imperator Traianus frm Bithinia wrote that “all temples have been abandoned and are desert, and the christians are the only responsible of this situation.”
In the same letter he wrote that he tortured some cristians.
I would add that the new christians were asked to leave their pagan and libertine behavior,
to observe very rigid moral and sexual behavior and to be ready to give their life for Christ;
if the apostoles never did miracles, nobody would have accepted this new religion.
In the christian religion, the promise of the eternal life is bound to very rigid moral requests.
In the first century, there were many religions who promised the life after death,
without such rigid requests; certainly the promise of eternal life is not sufficient to explain the success of the christian religion.

More recently, some supernatural facts occured at Fatima.
On the 13-10-1917 more than 70000 people saw the sun dance in the sky, change color, and then fall down and coming up to its normal place; these facts lasted for about ten minutes and were saw not only from the 70000 people at Fatima, but also from people living in the villages around Fatima.
Among those people there were also many atheist journalists from some anticlerical journals,
who were there in order to discredit the religious  “superstitions” of catholicism, since the child Lucia said that on that day God would have given a great sign for everybody.
In fact, since 1910, the portuguese government had started a very hard battle against the Catholic Church: many religious orders were expelled and their property confiscated, new legislation banned the teaching of religion in schools and universities and annulled many religious holidays. Persecution of Catholics in the early years of the republic attracted international attention and brought the new political system into conflict with foreign diplomats, humanitarian organizations, and journalists.

Those journalists have written very detailed accounts of the facts occurred at Fatima ,
which were reported on all newspapers in the world, including the New York Times.  
Among the journalists present at Fatima on October 17, there was  the (atheist) director Avelino de Almeida of the government (and very antireligious) newspaper "O Seculo”. The article, published with the title "Terrifying Event! How The Sun Danced In The Sky Of Fatima"  can be found on the site

www.ewtn.com/fatima/apparitions/October.htm

In his article, the journalist describes a crowd of biblical dimensions, spread in the fields of Fatima. At a certain point, this immense crowd begins to cry "Miracle! Miracle!" looking at the sun. The journalists describes then an amazed crowd, who cry and pray.
I have tried to analyse these data to see whether it was possible to find a plausible explanation, excluding a divine intervention, but I have found none. No scientifically acceptable explanations exist for such a phenomenon.
I do not think it is reasonable to hypothesize a conspiracy of 70000 people, simulating a collective vision. On the other hand, it would not have been possible to hypnotize such a crowd, spread on an area of some square kilometers. Besides it is scientifically impossible, even with the present technology (you can imagine with the technology available in 1917!), to realize an optical illusion like that.
Some atheists try to explain this miracle as a banal optical effect; when we look at the sun for a while, we see coloured pulsating spots, or when the clouds move in the sky, they can create the illusion that the sun is moving.
Obviously, we all know this, we all have looked at the sun and we all know the effects, we all have seen the clouds moving in the sky. Those who were at Fatima certainly knew this as well.
So, unless we hypothesize that at Fatima there were only 70000 idiots, such explanation is not plausible at all.
Some then speak about hysterism or suggestion. However, if catholics were all subject to hysteric crisis or they were so easily suggestionable, one couldn't explain why in 2000 years of catholicism there are no other cases of crowds witnessing to having seen such extraordinary phenomena. Actually, there was only the word of three children, and if this was sufficient to suggestionize so  much catholics, then whoever claims to have some visions of Our Lady, could easily make a crowd of 70000 catholics to see the sun dancing in the sky.

The miracle of Fatima is the most extraordinary and well recorded miracle in all history. This miracle has occurred in the Catholic Church, since the three children were catholics (Lucia, the only one of the three children still alive is a catholic nun).
The fact that so many people saw these phenomena cannot be explained
without the hypotesis of a supernatural being, because neither science nor
logic would allow something like that to happen.
Some then ipothesize that some rare physical phenomenon must have happened at Fatima that day; certainly it should have been a very rare phenomenon! I do not think such ipothesis have any value, but even if it should have been a rare physical phenomenon, the fact that it occurred exactly in the place and in the time predicted by the three children is for me the most evident proof of the supernatural nature of such event.


A brief and incomplete description of the supernatural facts occurred at Fatima can be found also in some contemporary encyclopedias, for example the Britannica (also available on internet at www.britannica.com)
gives at the voice Fatima :

village and sanctuary, Vila Nova de Ourém municipality, Santarém district, central Portugal; it is located on the tableland of Cova da Iria, 18 miles (29 km) southeast of Leiria. Fátima was named for a 12th-century Moorish princess and since 1917 has been one of the greatest Marian shrines in the world, visited by thousands of pilgrims annually. On May 13, 1917, and in each subsequent month until October of that year, three young peasant children, Lucia dos Santos and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto, reportedly saw a lady who identified herself as the Lady of the Rosary. On October 13, a crowd (generally estimated at about 70,000) gathered at Fátima witnessed a “miraculous solar phenomenon” immediately after the lady had appeared to the children.

You can find also some information about this miracle in the encyclopedia  Wikipedia, available on line  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun


The fundamental role of miracles in the history of Christianity cannot be doubted.
The miracles done by Jesus proved that He was the Messiah, and the miracles done by the apostoles proved that they were really sent by Christ.

Miracles still happen within the catholic church.
In the following site the 66 official miracles occured at Lourdes are described.
The miracolous nature of these healings have been scientifically proved

http://www.catholic-forum.com/catholicteacher/lourdescontents.html


Other interesting sites

http://www.fatima.org/miracle1.html

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

http://www.sancta.org/eyes.html

I have given above several rational arguments which explain why the certainty of the existence of God is for me as strong as the certainty that I exist.

I give you here some considerations about the church.

Who has the authority to interpret correctly the Bible and to teach correctly Jesus' teachings?

Only a person who knows and understands what Jesus taught can teach what Jesus taught.
So, who are the persons who really know Jesus' teachings?
Many think they are teaching what Jesus taught, but they teach different doctrines, therefore it is evident that they are teaching only their opinions, because Jesus cannot contradicts Himself.

Jesus gave the commandment to teach the Gospel ONLY to His disciples and He NEVER gave this commandment to the crowds; this clearly proves that not all can teach the Gospel, but only those who have been taught and sent (directly or indirectly) by Jesus.

How did the Church's mission  pass to each generation?
The Bible explains this to us.

Acts 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them, and said, It is not right that we should neglect the word of God to serve tables.
6:3 Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.
6:6 These they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

The apostolic mission is passed to other people directly from the apostoles.

Acts 14:19 And certain Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, who, having persuaded the people, stoned Paul, and dragged him out of the city, supposing he was dead.
14:20 Yet, as the disciples stood around him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.
14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had made disciples of many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
14:22 Strengthening the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying that through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom of God.
14:23 And when they had appointed elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they committed them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

Again it is Paul (who in his turn received the apostolic mission with the laying of hands, see Acts 9:15-19) who appoints the elders.

1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.
2 Timothy 1:6 For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.

Paul writes clearly that the presbyterate is received with the imposition of hands.

The prespityters in their turn, appointed other people:

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Christ founded His Church 2000 years ago; He ordered the apostoles to teach His Word, and they appointed other people, who in their turn appointed other people, etc.  so that the apostolic mission has lasted until our days.
This is the catholic Church, which receives its apostolic mission form Christ and teach the true teachings of Christ, as they were given to the apostoles.
There is an historical connection between the present catholic church and the church founded by Christ 2000 years ago, while there is no historical connection between the many protestant denominations and the church of Christ.
In fact Christ never appeared to Luther or Calvin, etc.; Christ never authorized Luther to found a new church and to teach his opinions as if they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
All the apostoles did many powerful miracles which proved that they were really sent by Christ, but Luther did no miracle in order to prove that his interpretations were really inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The protestant churches teaches many sinful doctrines, for example that divorce and remarriage are permissible, that abortion is permissible (some denominations), etc.

Mt 16:18 And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
16:19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tm 3:15)

These two verses are sufficient to prove that the Church of Christ teaches infallibly the truth.
Christ founded His church 2000 years ago and He assured us that the gates of Hell  shall not prevail against His Church. The Bible assures us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
If the protestant churches were the church of Christ (which one among thousends of different denominations?), it would mean that Jesus lied when He said that the gates of Hell would have not prevail against His church and that the Bible is wrong when it says that the Church is the pillar of the truth.
In fact, before 1500 dC there were only the catholic church and the eastern orthodox church.
Since both the catholic church and the orthodox church teach  doctrines such as prayer for the dead, prayers to saints, etc. if protestants were right, this would imply that the church founded by Jesus 2000 years ago had been defeated by Satan for about 1500 years.
Christ spent more than three years with His disciples and taught them; How is it possible that Jesus' teachings were forgotten and replaced with sinful teachings for about 1500 years?
All the people who lived during those centuries would have been induced to sin by the church founded by Christ; it is absurd that a loving Father would have allowed this to happen, and this would have certainly meant that the gates of Hell had prevaled against the church of Christ, in contradiction with His own words.
Christ cannot contradict Himself; if Christ has taught through His Church certain doctrines for 1500 years, these doctrines cannot be considered sinful.

Besides, only to Peter Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven; this proves that Jesus gave Peter a special role in the Church ; this is sufficent to prove Peter’s supremacy. Consider that the very first act done by Jesus after founding His Church, is to give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; there is then a fundamental relation between these keys and the Church. After Peter's death in Rome, who has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven? I think that the most logical answer is: Peter's successor in Rome, the Pope.
The special role of Peter still exist in the Church of Christ, and it is the role of Peter's successor, the Pope. This special role allow christians to identify with certainty the only true Church of Christ. There is in fact an historical continuity between Peter and the present Pope, the apostolic succession.

Protestants usually think that their interpretations are inspired by the Holy Spirit ; but they are divided in  thousends of different denominations and they have different interpretations.
Since the Holy Spirit cannot contradicts Himself, it is evident that their interpretations are only fallible human opinions.
In fact, when Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit, He was speaking directly to the apostoles only, and NOT to the crowds. John 16 :12-13"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”
Jesus NEVER made this promise to the crowds, but ONLY to the Apostoles when they were TOGETHER WITH PETER. Therefore you cannot  generalize this promise to every christian; this verse can be applied ONLY to the bishops (the apostoles' successors) when they are together with the Pope (Peter's successor).
I believe that God loves us; it follows that God has not abandoned us to our fallible human interpretations and opinions.
Through the prophets, God prepared the Jews (even if only some of them) to receive Christ; Christ remained with His disciples for about three years and half and taught them all the necessary moral and spirital knowledges for our salvation, so that in their turn they could teach others, who in their turn could teach others, etc.
In this way the teachings of Christ has spread throughout the world and the centuries through His Church, the catholic Church.
A loving Father would never abandon His children to their human and fallible opinions.
A loving Father would certainly give His children a “guide” so that they could receive His holy and good teachings.
This “guide” is the Catholic Church, the Church founded by Christ 2000 years ago.


Usually protestants say that the catholic church has been corrupted :
If this were true, it would mean that Jesus was a lier, because He said that the gates of Hell would have not prevailed agaisnt His church.
The truth is that corrupted men have been present within the church since the very beginning (Judas was one of the apostoles), but the church was never corrupted because its teachings were always good.
Judas was sent by Jesus to teach the Gospel, to heal the sick, to cast demons (see Mt 10 :1-8)
The fact that there were men within the church who commited grave sins, does not mean that the church is corrupted.
Every man is responsible of his own sins, but the church is a divine institution and is above its human members and its doctrine is divine.
The fact that Judas was corrupted does not mean that church of Christ was corrupted.

Usually protestants believe in the Sola Scriptura principle, but there is  in this case no verse in the Bible which establishes this principle. This is then a striking contradiction of protestantism.
The Bible did not come down from the sky one day.
The biblical canon was established by a Concilium of catholic bishops three centuries after Christ, and so the christian communities lived for three centuries without the New Testament.
Jesus never wrote anything, which clearly proves that the christian faith cannot be founded on a book.
Jesus founded a Church , and NOT a book.
Jesus chose to found a living Church, a living and visible guide for all christians, to help them to understand the Truth.
Jesus is still the head of the Church and He still leads His Church.
Jesus still teaches and guides us through His living Church, the Catholic Church.
The Bible says that “The Church is the pillar and  bulwark of the truth” (1Timothy 3 :15).
Jesus gave the Church the authority of binding and loosing (Mt. 18 :17-18).
Jesus never wrote anything ; the New Testament has been produced by the Church, and the Church still produces writings to teach us the spirital and moral Truth.
The same Holy Spirit Who inspired the authors of the Bible, still leads the Magisterium of the Church in its apostolic mission.
The Cathechism contains the official teachings of the Church, and it is to be considered inspired by the Holy Spirit.
You can find the Cathechism on line at

www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

Your brother in Christ,

Marco




---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: thanks for the answer Marco

i came to the conclusion that both in Eastern Orthodox( at first i only thought Roman Catholicism out of all the religions had miracles,  but then i stumbled upon Eastern Orthodox and seen some miraculous photos and testimonies,etc just like in Roman Catholicism) and Roman Catholicism we have alot of miracles and miraculous photos and the virgin mary appearing( i think Catholics have more miracles, like Fatima and Lourdes), etc, its like God is active in both of these religions, what would you say is the true religion? or are they both correct in God's eyes?

Answer
Dear Ramiro,

the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have exactly the same position on most moral and theological issues.
There are some different positions, and I believe that the Easten Orthodox Church is wrong in some points, but I think that many orthodox believers have a genuine faith, and therefore the Lord is certainly present also in the orthodox Church and He operates miracles also in this Church.

I woud like to give you a paragraph about the greek scism I have taken from tha Catholic Encyclopedia
at the following link:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm

The Greek Schism, about which space permits us to say very little (see PHOTIUS; MICHAEL CALUBARIUS), was caused by something that must have seemed trivial at Constantinople. On 23 November, 858, the Patriarch Ignatius was deposed, and on 25 December in the same year Photius succeeded him. Ignatius was deposed because he had refused Communion to the Emperor Bardas, who was living openly in sin with his daughter-in-law. It was not the first time at Byzantium that for more or less lawful actions an orthodox patriarch had been deposed and another appointed in his place. Thus, among other examples, Macedonius II had succeeded Euphemius in 496; John III had succeeded Eutychius in 565; Cyrus had succeeded Callinicus in 706, and John VI had replaced Cyrus in 712, without causing any great commotion. Ignatius might then have let things take their course and waited in his retreat till fortune turned his way once more. This he did not do, and, if he was somewhat lacking in suppleness, his right was incontestable. Once he had refused to consent to his deposition, Pope Nicholas I was bound to uphold him and to condemn Photius, who was an outright usurper. Photius was clever enough to see that a rupture with Rome on this point would not satisfy even the Greeks, so he cast about for another issue. He took, one by one, the many causes for separation that had been in the air for centuries and united them into a body of doctrine; then, confident in his learning and prestige, he decided to give battle. The insertion of the "Filioque" clause in the Creed, the procession of the Holy Ghost ab utroque, etc., were so many reasons which were bound to have their effect upon the leading minds when the question of the separation came up. Then again the popes' acknowledgment of the Frankish kings as Emperors of the West was bound to carry weight in Byzantine political circles. Moreover, it was evident by this time that between the Latin and Greek worlds there existed a chasm which must grow broader with the years. However, the Photius affair was arranged. Ignatius forgave his rival and, it appears, on his death-bed designated him as his successor. Pope John VIII sanctioned this choice, and if subsequent popes excommunicated Photius it was for special reasons not yet sufficiently known.

In 886, Photius was deposed by the Emperor Leo VI, who disliked him, and, between 893 and 901, a reconciliation of the two Churches was effected by Pope John IX and the Patriarch Antonius Cauleas. During the entire tenth century, and the first part of the eleventh, relations between the Roman and the Greek Churches were excellent. There were, no doubt, occasional difficulties, always unavoidable in societies different in customs, speech, and civilization, but we may almost go so far as to say that the union between the Churches was as deep and sincere as it was during the first three centuries of Christianity. Michael Cærularius, however, desired a schism for no other reason, apparently, than to satisfy his pride, and in 1054 he succeeded in making one at the very time when everything seemed to promise a lasting peace. For this purpose he brought forward, besides the theological reasons stated by Photius, many others that Photius had neglected or merely hinted at, and which were judged particularly fitted to catch the popular fancy. The use of azymes, or unleavened bread, in the liturgy, the celibacy imposed on all priests in the West, the warlike manners of Western bishops and priests, the shaven face and the tonsure, the Saturday fast, and other such divergencies of practice were used to discredit the Latin Church. Thoughtful men may not have been misled by these specious arguments, but the mass of the people and the monks were certainly influenced, and at Constantinople it was they who made up public opinion. For this very reason the policy of Michael Cærularius, petty and superficial as it was, was better fitted than that of Photius to bring about permanent results. Indeed, so thoroughly did it cut off the Greek peoples from Rome that since then she has never won them back.




Apart form these historical elements, I would like to give you some considerations about the main differences about the catholic and the orthodox faith.


Catholics assert that Orthodoxy's rejection of the papacy is inconsistent with the nature of the Church through the centuries. No one denies the existence of the papacy in some form in the early period. Orthodoxy, however, regards the authority exercised by popes historically (or which should have been exercised) as simply that of a primacy of honor, rather than a supremacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops and regional churches. To counter that claim, Catholics point to biblical Petrine evidences and the actual wielding of authority by renowned popes such as St. Leo the Great (440-61) and St. Gregory the Great (590-604), honored as saints even by the Orthodox. The papacy, according to Catholic Tradition, is a divinely-instituted office, not merely (as Orthodoxy considers the papacy and Roman supremacy) a political and historical happenstance. Rome was apostolic, and preeminent from the beginning of Christianity, whereas Constantinople (the seat of the Byzantine Empire) was not.
There are some important points about Papacy I would like to point out :

1) Catholic and orthodox bishops have different positions in matter of faith and morals (for example, the indissolubility of marriage).
This fact proves that the apostolic succession is not a sufficient condition to have the Holy Spirit safeguarding the Truth, because the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself. We need then an addictional criterion to establish which bishops have this gift and are really teaching the Truth.

2) The Lord gave only to Peter the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and so the Lord established a special role for one person in the Church.
This is the addictional criterion we need to establish which bishops are teaching the Truth, and they are those bishops who are united to Peter's successor. In fact when Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-13), He was speaking directly to the apostoles when they were together with Peter, and so this promise is to be considered valid only for those bishops united with the Pope.

3)The fact that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to one person only, means that this role is unique in the Church of Christ.
We may have then only one true successor of Peter. Who received these keys after Peter's death in Rome? I think that the most logical answer is Peter's successor in Rome.


Likewise, Orthodoxy accepts the doctrinal development which occurred in the first eight centuries of the Church, but then allows little of any noteworthiness (with some notable exceptions: see first link below) to take place thereafter. For instance, the filioque, i.e., the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, rather than from the Father alone (which the West added to the Nicene Creed), was rejected by the East, and has been considered by the Orthodox a major reason for the enduring schism, yet Catholics would reply that it was a straightforward development of trinitarian theology (one of many accepted by both East and West). Aspects of doctrines such as the Blessed Virgin Mary and purgatory (not defined doctrine, although the Orthodox pray for the dead), which experienced a measure of development in the Middle Ages and after, are not recognized in Orthodoxy. For example, Orthodoxy doesn't define the Marian doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, but it should be noted that Orthodox individuals are free to believe these without being deemed "heretical." Catholics feel that Orthodoxy is implicitly denying the notion of the Church (past the eighth century) as the living, developing Body of Christ, continuously led into deeper truth by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13-15).

Catholicism and orthodoxy have different positions concerning divorce.
Catholics also believe that Jesus and the Apostles, and ancient Christian Tradition, considered a valid sacramental marriage between two baptized Christians as absolutely indissoluble. An annulment is essentially different from a divorce in that it is the determination (based on a variety of possible reasons) that a valid sacramental marriage never existed. Orthodoxy accepts second and third marriages, in contraddiction with Jesus’ commandments (see the verses reported above about divorce).



I hope this may help,

your brother in Christ,

Marco