Differences between Orthodox and Catholic Churches

[ConstantineTG]

I can tell you of another bishop though, who would like to believe that he is the universal bishop.

I thought you were going to say, Patriarch Kirill

 

[Bezant]

No matter where you go, someone out there will say its wrong for you to be there. Its the nature of everything, that people look at other people who are different from them and criticize them. Even if you become a Buddhist or Muslim, someone will criticize it. Even if you move to another country and take their citizenship, someone will say something bad. You have to discern on your own (with proper guidance of course from those who you trust) and be confident with your choice. When I decided to become Eastern Catholic, many thought I was crazy. One of the most common things was that I’m not ethnically Ukrainian, so why am I in a Ukrainian Church? Others think that I’m no longer Catholic because I’m not Roman Catholic. I feel sad and I feel hurt about it, but I am happy where I am. I feel God led me hear and I’m thankful that despite the challenges, He has given me many wonderful things to affirm I am in the right place. If I continue to listen to those who think I made a terrible mistake, I’ll be miserable. Though its not been without challenges, I’m as happy as I can be with where I am. You should seek to find that in your spiritual life.

Very well-written and interesting, Constantine.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

No matter where you go, someone out there will say its wrong for you to be there. Its the nature of everything, that people look at other people who are different from them and criticize them. Even if you become a Buddhist or Muslim, someone will criticize it. Even if you move to another country and take their citizenship, someone will say something bad. You have to discern on your own (with proper guidance of course from those who you trust) and be confident with your choice. When I decided to become Eastern Catholic, many thought I was crazy. One of the most common things was that I’m not ethnically Ukrainian, so why am I in a Ukrainian Church? Others think that I’m no longer Catholic because I’m not Roman Catholic. I feel sad and I feel hurt about it, but I am happy where I am. I feel God led me hear and I’m thankful that despite the challenges, He has given me many wonderful things to affirm I am in the right place. If I continue to listen to those who think I made a terrible mistake, I’ll be miserable. Though its not been without challenges, I’m as happy as I can be with where I am. You should seek to find that in your spiritual life.

I do feel happy also experiencing God within the Catholic Church,

My old Russian priest didnt deny God is involved in the lives of Catholics or many people out there in the world,but he just suggested i was an Orthodox Christian,having been Baptised Orthodox and making that promise to God,

to be honest ive had too much bad experiences with other Orthodox Christians,and Priests and have been very put off on going there,

i will keep praying and hope not to run too far into things when i dont really know what im doing except making a mess of things.

Pray for me

thank u

Bless

 

[Cavaradossi]

I thought you were going to say, Patriarch Kirill

Hehe, not who I was thinking of, but I’ll admit, that was pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Ok, but does the Ecumenical Patriarch possess universal jurisdiction, as a title of “universal bishop” might imply? The answer is obviously no. I can tell you of another bishop though, who would like to believe that he is the universal bishop.

The Church fathers, like St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Theologian cared little for unity with Rome. I’ll take the faith of submission to Christ and His Church over the faith of submission to the bishop of Rome any day.

read about Pope Gregory again and understand it better,

…he was directing it at Constantinople…

…or was he astral travelling to the year 1990 and speaking to the Pope of rome

St John Chrys was exiled by his own eastern people and wrote to Pope Innocent and you say he didnt care about the Pope or Rome…

 

[Cavaradossi]

read about Pope Gregory again and understand it better,

…he was directing it at Constantinople…

…or was he astral travelling to the year 1990 and speaking to the Pope of rome

St John Chrys was exiled by his own eastern people and wrote to Pope Innocent and you say he didnt care about the Pope or Rome…

Read about the Ecumenical Patriarch and understand his role better. He doesn’t claim to have universal jurisdiction or to be a “universal bishop” in the sense of what Pope Gregory was saying. The Ecumenical Patriarch has much less power within the Eastern Orthodox Church than the Pope does within the Roman Catholic Church; the two are not equivalent.

You also neglect to mention that St. John Chrysostom also sent identical letters to several other bishops in the West. Also, St. John Chrysostom was ordained by Meletius and spent 17 years of his ordained life in schism with Rome. He certainly did not think that communion with Rome was a central tenet of the Christian faith.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

i still think your misunderstanding Gregory,

 

[Cavaradossi]

i still think your misunderstanding Gregory,READ IT AGAIN!!!

Perhaps it is you who misunderstands St. Gregory the Great and the Ecclesiology of the Church. What St. Gregory the Great is protesting is the idea that any bishop should attempt to take universal jurisdiction (i.e., trying to govern the Church as one mega-diocese), as the title of ‘universal bishop’ might imply. Despite taking up the title of ‘Ecumenical Patriarch,’ however, the Patriarch of Constantinople never did take on universal jurisdiction, so Pope Gregory’s misgivings were a bit of an overreaction.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

“What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588. Gregory condemned the patriarch’s act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

“What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588. Gregory condemned the patriarch’s act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope.”

Yes, and I just told you that the Ecumenical Patriarch does not have universal jurisdiction. So what’s the problem?

 

[Paul_theApostle]

so why did Gregory have a problem with it?

if it wasnt meant to mean having Uni Jurisd ,why did he condemn it,

did he assume that John the Fast. wanted Uni Power,but he was wrong in assuming?

peace

 

[Cavaradossi]

so why did Gregory have a problem with it?

if it wasnt meant to mean having Uni Jurisd ,why did he condemn it,

did he assume that John the Fast. wanted Uni Power,but he was wrong in assuming?

peace

Yes, I think that is likely the case.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

well if the Pope truly has Uni Juri then maybe his got a point to be upset,

another Bishop calling himself the Uni Bishop kind of like sets himself up as a Rival to the Pope and the position of Uni Bishop which only he has the right to,

and the Ecumen Patri. still today goes by that name,now look at the state of the whole church ,…divided badly for so long over power issues and maybe if anyone has any kind of right to any sort of power to call himself a Uni Bishop,maybe it would or could be the Pope ,

Peter the Apostle etc etc etc etc etc

 

[Cavaradossi]

well if the Pope truly has Uni Juri then maybe his got a point to be upset,

another Bishop calling himself the Uni Bishop kind of like sets himself up as a Rival to the Pope and the position of Uni Bishop which only he has the right to,

and the Ecumen Patri. still today goes by that name,now look at the state of the whole church ,…divided badly for so long over power issues and maybe if anyone has any kind of right to any sort of power to call himself a Uni Bishop,maybe it would or could be the Pope ,

Peter the Apostle etc etc etc etc etc

I’ve told you several times that despite his title, the Ecumenical Patriarch does not possess universal jurisdiction within the Eastern Orthodox Church. You are being rather obstinate when it comes to asserting otherwise, despite the fact that the Ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox Church does not allow the Ecumenical Patriarch to have universal jurisdiction.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

forget it…

 

[Hesychios]

well if the Pope truly has Uni Juri then maybe his got a point to be upset,

Universal Jurisdiction is a modern invention of the Ultramontanists. It is a political invention.

It did not exist in the early church and was not defined before 1870AD. That is one thousand eight hundred and forty years after Pentecost.

 

[KathleenGee]

The primacy of Peter is the work of unity and charity, and to keep us together under one pope.

 

[wernerhindrichs]

Orthodoxy has no official teachings about Roman Catholics.

You cannot believe in certain Roman Catholic dogmas or teachings - papal infallibility, papal universal supremacy, arguably the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, indulgences, and possibly some others. You can of course respect them as honestly held beliefs of Roman Catholics, but you cannot believe them.

I, as an Orthodox Christian, have a problem with some of what is quoted. Whereas the bulk of the above has been argued to death, there are in fact Orthodox indulgences, and have been for at least 400 years. I have several in my possession, which were granted to Romanian monasteries by the Patriarch of Jerusalem between 1920 and 1935. All too often we have a tendency to blame Catholics for everything lurking under the bed at night, ignoring such inconvenient truths as the ability for the components of the Church to essentially get along both with and without the Filioque. I think we could do that again, if we got some of the tendentiousness out of the faith.

 

[Rawb]

I, as an Orthodox Christian, have a problem with some of what is quoted. Whereas the bulk of the above has been argued to death, there are in fact Orthodox indulgences, and have been for at least 400 years. I have several in my possession, which were granted to Romanian monasteries by the Patriarch of Jerusalem between 1920 and 1935. All too often we have a tendency to blame Catholics for everything lurking under the bed at night, ignoring such inconvenient truths as the ability for the components of the Church to essentially get along both with and without the Filioque. I think we could do that again, if we got some of the tendentiousness out of the faith.

In Christ

Vladimir Hindrichs

Take it up with the Patriarch of Jerusalem. We don’t believe any patriarch is infallible, and many, many times in the past patriarchs (and other bishops) have done something unOrthodox. Recall Arianism. Some have been deposed for it, some haven’t, but just because one, two, or even many bishops have done something doesn’t mean it’s completely Orthodox. It must be judged against the Faith, against Tradition, and I cannot see how indulgences fit at all with Orthodox theology.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I, as an Orthodox Christian, have a problem with some of what is quoted. Whereas the bulk of the above has been argued to death, there are in fact Orthodox indulgences, and have been for at least 400 years. I have several in my possession, which were granted to Romanian monasteries by the Patriarch of Jerusalem between 1920 and 1935. All too often we have a tendency to blame Catholics for everything lurking under the bed at night, ignoring such inconvenient truths as the ability for the components of the Church to essentially get along both with and without the Filioque. I think we could do that again, if we got some of the tendentiousness out of the faith.

Just to clarify, when you say indulgences, are you talking about the practice granting the remission of sins for money (something which both churches have done in the past, but something which both no longer practice) or the theological concept that by doing certain acts of merit, one can gain a remission of temporal punishment incurred through sins? The former is an abuse of the Church and a practice which is objectively wrong in both churches; the latter is incompatible with Orthodox theology due to the fact that we do not believe in a purgatory where the deceased undergoes temporal punishment. Either way, indulgences are not compatible with Orthodoxy.