Catholic or Orthodox

[dzheremi]

I don’t really think that’s very likely. In general, regardless of their personal feelings on any given matter, Orthodox know of the existence of these other groups and that they cannot commune with them without the approval of their bishop and the bishop of the other church. Even in my tiny Coptic Church, people don’t always understand what makes us different than “the Greeks” (the OO are very laid back about differences within our communion, so generally what I’ve heard from people at church is more “hmmm, the Greeks don’t do ____ [thing that we do]? That’s interesting”, rather than “That’s heretical” or whatever), but they do understand that we cannot commune with them or commune them in our church.

 

[joe371]

Catholic or Orthodox

I am curious as to which version of Christianity is more correct, and the arguments for and against each branch or sect of Christianity.

Jesus’ Catholic Church was faced with smaller rifts prior to the 11th century east - west schism. However, it was then that Jesus’ Catholic church split, but continues to be His one, albeit fractured, Body of Christ, in my humble opinion. Both continue to possess the life-affirming sacraments that strengthen and unite us to the Holy Trinity. Personally, the Catholic Church, with its head quarters in Rome, makes the strongest argument in light of the Petrine office, but that’s just me. Interesting read: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

 

[prodromos]

Could another option be that my friend is truly Orthodox but does not know better? I hope the next time I see him I can clear up my understanding.

Peace!!!

He might be referring to the fact that we can’t just rock up to any Orthodox Church we are not normally a member of and expect to be allowed Holy Communion. If the priest does not know the person coming forward, he would be justified in refusing communion. If we intend receiving Holy Communion in a parish not our own, we always call the priest ahead of time and he will usually confirm whether or not we have been to confession recently.
Only Orthodox Christians who have properly prepared themselves before hand are permitted to receive.

 

[Butaperson]

As far as I can tell, it is a matter of Papal authority.
Other than certain traditions, there is pretty much one difference: The Catholics are in communion with Rome and the Orthodox are not.
I once went on an Orthodox forum and saw a question saying, “Why are you not Byzantine Catholic?”. The answers were unanimous - I don’t believe in Papal authority.
The way I understand it, the Orthodox have bishops just like Catholics do, but no Pope - no one person leading the Church as a whole.

So, do you believe in a central authority or no, that is the question you must answer to determine Roman Catholic or Orthodox.

 

[GraceSofia]

And this is what happens when you aren’t in communion with the pope:

The Patriarchate of Constantinople Does Not Recognize the Election of the New Head of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia

Also Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

To the OP: your question is way too broad for one thread. I would suggest that you do some reading/research on your own, and then come back with more specific questions, which I’m sure people would be delighted to answer.

Here are a couple of articles from the forum library:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter-and-the-eastern-orthodox
catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn%E2%80%99t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy

 

[Nicea325]

I have spent some time reading Orthodox material, and I am inclined to believe that the Orthodox is truth. I am just curious to see what are the arguments against the Orthodox are.

Yes the Orthodox uphold the Truth.

 

[Nine_Two]

And this is what happens when you aren’t in communion with the pope:

The Patriarchate of Constantinople Does Not Recognize the Election of the New Head of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia

If you don’t have the pope you have disputes in the elections of hierarchs?

The fourteenth century suggests these can also happen when you do have a pope (let’s hope the Czech’s keep things a bit more controlled than that).

 

[TruthBearer]

Your understanding is incorrect.

There are multiple communions which call themselves Orthodox, in much the same way that there are multiple communions which call themselves Catholic.

Given the Orthodox vs. Catholic angle of the question, I would believe the OP is talking about Eastern Orthodox. Had the OP been talking about the Oriental Orthodox (the other large communion calling itself Orthodox) it is likely the question would have specified that since they are much smaller.

Your assessment is correct, Eastern Orthodox VS Roman Catholic. These are the two that I am familiar with. Although I am aware of the other Orthodox sects or churches.,

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I’ve read a couple papers now that argue Orthodoxy’s idea that infallibility resides only in collegiality is inherently circular. I believe one such tract is posted somewhere here on Catholic Answers. Has there been any serious rebuttal of such by the Orthodox, and if so could someone kindly link me to it/them?

 

[Nine_Two]

I’ve read a couple papers now that argue Orthodoxy’s idea that infallibility resides only in collegiality is inherently circular. I believe one such tract is posted somewhere here on Catholic Answers. Has there been any serious rebuttal of such by the Orthodox, and if so could someone kindly link me to it/them?

It might help if you started by posting a link to the tract.

Given the way you have phrased that, would I be wrong in supposing that the article’s argument is based on the idea that we have an identical concept of infallibility as currently rests on the Pope in Roman theology. I can say right off that aside from not believing in that sort of infallibility, the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope is itself based on collegiality (as Eastern Catholics will point out), and the collegiality that grants that is based on the same principles of our own collegiality. Which means, in short, if our reasoning is circular, yours is equally circular, with an extra step at the end.

 

[josie_L]

If you don’t have the pope you have disputes in the elections of hierarchs?

**The fourteenth century suggests these can also happen when you do have a pope **(let’s hope the Czech’s keep things a bit more controlled than that).

But that in major part was due to state intervention in church affairs, i.e., the situation between the patriarch of Constantinople and the Czech Church hierarchy is an internal issue.

 

[dzheremi]

But that in major part was due to state intervention in church affairs, i.e., the situation between the patriarch of Constantinople and the Czech Church hierarchy is an internal issue.

I’m sorry, but what difference does that make when the post that Nine Two was responding to basically says that these things happen if you’re not in communion with the Roman Pope?

And this is what happens when you aren’t in communion with the pope:

The Patriarchate of Constantinople Does Not Recognize the Election of the New Head of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia

Nine Two’s example is relevant because, of course, merely being in communion with the Pope of Rome is not and has never been the unbreakable ecclesiastical bond that RCs in this thread are trying to present it as.

 

[josie_L]

I’m sorry, but what difference does that make when the post that Nine Two was responding to basically says that these things happen if you’re not in communion with the Roman Pope?

Because the problem does not ensue from structural (internal) issues, i.e., the problems experienced by our Church (in the 14th century) had a lot to do with external factors.

 

[andrewstx]

To tell the truth I was Catholic before I became Orthodox. I changed for several reasons. First even though I love the Holy Father I think he has Primacy and not Supremacy. I don’t believe he should have Universal immediate jurisdiction.

There were other more trivial reasons. I dislike the Novus Ordo Mass, and guitars and
'praise bands" in church. I also dislike getting only the body of Christ and not his blood. We are given both in Orthodoxy.

I considered being Eastern Catholic, but the nearest EC church is 500 miles away.

 

[Nine_Two]

But that in major part was due to state intervention in church affairs, i.e., the situation between the patriarch of Constantinople and the Czech Church hierarchy is an internal issue.

No it wasn’t. A group of Cardinals elected a Pope, then another group elected another pope. Different countries supported different popes. Then some cardinals from both groups decided to get together and elect yet another pope.

State intervention had nothing to do with it.

 

[Nine_Two]

Because the problem does not ensue from structural (internal) issues, i.e., the problems experienced by our Church (in the 14th century) had a lot to do with external factors.

Although I believe you are wrong on your objections I’m not going to get into that.

Do you honestly think there are no external factors here?

 

[josie_L]

Although I believe you are wrong on your objections I’m not going to get into that.

Do you honestly think there are no external factors here?

I’m sure there are some external factors involved but I also think that Orthodoxy has internal issues because of its structure/ecclesiology (such as phyletism), i.e., it’s hard to resolve issues in Orthodoxy because there is no tangible way of practically enforcing them.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m sure there are some external factors involved but I also think that Orthodoxy has internal issues because of its structure/ecclesiology (such as phyletism).

How would phyletism fit in here? You think the EP is refusing to recognize the Czech patriarch because he’s not Greek? Also, you’re aware that the EO condemned phyletism as a heresy at a synod in Constantinople in 1872, right?.And that the Roman communion has more individual ethnically-organized churches than the EO communion does? I’m not sure whether this is a case of glass houses and stones or a physician failing to heal himself, but…well, one of those should do it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Because the problem does not ensue from structural (internal) issues, i.e., the problems experienced by our Church (in the 14th century) had a lot to do with external factors.

I can hardly see how one can pass off a rival college of cardinals electing another pope, claiming that the one elected just months prior was insane, as being merely an external issue. It certainly did reflect a structural issue within the Latin church at that time, as the case of the Avignon line of cardinals was canonically sound. Indeed, even contemporary Latins thought of the issue as a structural issue. Indeed, most theologians and canonists saw a sort of Gordian Knot, a situation with no clear solution; as canonist Conrad of Gelnhausen put it:It is impossible for the general council to be held or celebrated without the authority of the pope. But to convene such a council in the present case the authority of the pope cannot step in, because no single person is universally recognized as pope, nor is any individual generally obeyed as pope, and if the council were to be convoked by the authority of the one or the other person now in question, he would in virtue of this be recognized as pope; and from this it is to be inferred that they cannot both authorize it, because there cannot be more than one supreme pontiff.

 

[josie_L]

How would phyletism fit in here? You think the EP is refusing to recognize the Czech patriarch because he’s not Greek? Also, you’re aware that the EO condemned phyletism as a heresy at a synod in Constantinople in 1872, right?.And that the Roman communion has more individual ethnically-organized churches than the EO communion does? I’m not sure whether this is a case of glass houses and stones or a physician failing to heal himself, but…well, one of those should do it.

I’m well aware that Phyletism was condemned, I’m saying that it is still an issue, and no, we Catholics do not have an issue with phyletism because phyletism is described as such:

Phyletism or ethnophyletism (from Greek ἔθνος ethnos “nation” and φυλετισμός phyletismos “tribalism”) is the principle of nationalities applied in the ecclesiastical domain: in other words, the confusion between Church and nation. The term ethnophyletismos designates the idea that a local autocephalous Church should be based not on a local [ecclesial] criterion, but on an ethnophyletist, national or linguistic one. It was used at the Holy and Great Μείζων Meizon “enlarged”] pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople on 10 September 1872 to qualify “phyletist (religious) nationalism,” which was condemned as a modern ecclesial heresy: the Church should not be confused with the destiny of a single nation or a single race.[1]

So no it’s not a case of glass houses and stones. . . . .

P.S. I’m not saying that Phyletism is per se the problem in this particular situation, but I don’t think it helps either.