Differences between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox

[Hesychios]

Constantinople (Byzantium) claimed to be the New Rome centuries before 1054.
(ex. Canon 3 of The Council of Constantinople (381)).

This is quite so, I should have noticed that.

It had nothing to do with Rome’s theology at the time, it was the reality of the times.

 

[Hesychios]

Simply put, the entirety of the Syro-Byzantine Antiochian church came into union. Some years later, a group splits off…

It was not some years later, that was an ongoing dispute in the divided synod.

The bishops were at it tooth and claw.

 

[Madaglan]

Simply put, the entirety of the Syro-Byzantine Antiochian church came into union. Some years later, a group splits off, and the Contantinopolitan Patriarch appoints a Patriarch unto them, creating the lineage which is the Antiochian Orthodox. For clarity, the ones in union called themselves Melkites.

When Byzantium was created a patriarchate by the council, it’s placement after Rome was due to being both the center of the liturgical praxis, as well as the capital of the Roman Empire… it was civilly referred to as New Rome, as well as “The City” and Byzantium, and Constantinople (“Constantine’s City”).

I’ll have to look more into the particular union to which you refer. Are you referring to the 1724 union that Ghosty mentions? He seems to indicate that most (but not all) of the Synod of the Byzantine Antiochian Church agreed to union.

In any case, when I used the term Melkite, I was not referring specifically to the Melkite Catholics of the Melkite Catholic Church, but to the largely Greek-speaking persons in Egypt and the Middle East who supported Chalcedon.

Constantinople as “The City” or “The City”

I wish I could call Rome “Romulus’ City”.

 

[Aramis]

Hesyschios:
no argument, really. The split from Rome turns the position of “New Rome” as second in the church to primate of the communion… at least in the views from the various Russian Orthodox. And the Muslim Captivity (still ongoing, really) of Constantinople is the basis for Moscow’s claim of Primacy of the EOC… even tho’ that primacy was never conferred upon them.

Magdalan:
I just read the other day that Istanbul is derived from the greek for “into the city”…
Etymologically, it derives from the Greek phrase “εἰς τὴν Πόλιν” [istinˈbolin] or in the Aegean dialect “εἰς τὰν Πόλιν” [istanˈbolin] (modern Greek “στην Πόλι” [stinˈboli]), which means “in the city”, “to the city” or “downtown”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul

 

[ABINAYA]

In the beginning of Christianity, there was only one Church. As Christianity began to spread to the four corners of the known world, it was decided that there needed to be a “central” location from which to teach and congregate as well as a place for the office handed down from Jesus. “The keys to the kingdom”. It was decided that Rome should be that location. However, that was not a unanimous decision. Almost half of the Church leaders thought that Constantinople should be where we should establish the “Physical” Church. Due to this argument, the now referred to “Orthodox Catholics” split off and denounced Papal authority. This was the first split from the Church Jesus established, but certainly not the last.

==========================================================
Best Acne Medicine
buy bodybuilding supplements

 

[Hesychios]

Hello ABINAYA,

In the beginning of Christianity, there was only one Church. As Christianity began to spread to the four corners of the known world, it was decided that there needed to be a “central” location from which to teach and congregate as well as a place for the office handed down from Jesus. “The keys to the kingdom”. It was decided that Rome should be that location. However, that was not a unanimous decision. Almost half of the Church leaders thought that Constantinople should be where we should establish the “Physical” Church. Due to this argument, the now referred to “Orthodox Catholics” split off and denounced Papal authority. This was the first split from the Church Jesus established, but certainly not the last.

A very simple explanation, and quite frankly…incorrect.

Welcome to the forum.

Michael

 

[jimmy]

Huh?

In which document, council or imperial decision does Constantinople create new Patriarchates of Alexandria and/or Antioch. My understanding is that Proterius was chosen at Chalcedon, or close on the heels of it at least, as new Patriarch of Alexandria–whom the non-Chalcedonians rejected and subsequently elected Timothy the Cat as successor to Dioscoros (deposed according to Chacledon).

What makes you think the resulting non-Chalcedonian line as original, the Chalcedonian one as created?

And why not think of the Melkites as the remnant? The early Melkites were, in any case, members of the Church of Alexandria…Antioch…etc., before Chalcedon.

The split in the patriarchate didn’t occur until the second half of the sixth century. There was one patriarch of Antioch and Alexandria until that point. Most of the time he was a ‘monophysite’ like Peter Mongus or Timothy Aelurus or several of the others. The full split in heirarchy occured under the emperor Justinian.

 

[7_Sorrows]

i tried to read through all of the posts and maybe someone said this and i didn’t see it, but the priests in the eastern churches are also allowed to marry as well aren’t they?

i am not sure about the bishops.

i wonder how many roman catholics, eastern catholics and orthodox there are, even if they aren’t all in communion.

 

[Cluny]

i tried to read through all of the posts and maybe someone said this and i didn’t see it, but the priests in the eastern churches are also allowed to marry as well aren’t they?<<

No.

A married man may be ordained a priest in Eastern Churches, whether Orthodox or Catholic.

A priest may not marry after ordination to the diaconate.

Bishops in both must be unmarried, though it’s not unheard of for widowers to be selected.

 

[Madaglan]

The split in the patriarchate didn’t occur until the second half of the sixth century. There was one patriarch of Antioch and Alexandria until that point. Most of the time he was a ‘monophysite’ like Peter Mongus or Timothy Aelurus or several of the others. The full split in heirarchy occured under the emperor Justinian.

Just taking a quick view of the claimants to the Patriarch of Alexandria leading up to the middle of the 6th century, it appears there still were pro-Chalcedon Patriarchs of Alexandria until the early 480’s. For example: Proterius, Timothy Salophakiolos, John Talaia. After this time, for the 55 years up to the election of Theodosius, in 535, the Patriarchs of Alexandria do indeed seem to be nearly all Miaphysite. This period of nearly all Miaphysite Patriarchs largely coincides with the attempt of reconciliation via acceptance of the Henotikon.

The election of Timothy Auleurus by the supporters of Dioscorus signified the existence of two claimants for the same see. When there was only one Patriarch of Alexandria, it was usually due to the fact that the “previous” Patriarch had either been killed or forcefully booted from the city! Violent times back then!

I do agree that the definitive split took place during Justinian’s reign…

Although, I would add that reconciliation might yet have occurred had not the Muslims conquered Egypt and Syria in the early 7th century.

 

[Madaglan]

i tried to read through all of the posts and maybe someone said this and i didn’t see it, but the priests in the eastern churches are also allowed to marry as well aren’t they?

i am not sure about the bishops.

i wonder how many roman catholics, eastern catholics and orthodox there are, even if they aren’t all in communion.

There’s another thread in the Eastern Catholic forum addressing your first question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=336524

In the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) married men may be ordained, but ordained men may not marry. If a candidate for ordination plans on being married, he has to do so before being ordained.

Bishops cannot marry, although in the early Church, it was not strange for bishops to have married before their episcopal election.

Latin Catholics far outnumber Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Christians combined. There are over 1 billion Latin Catholics in the world. The number of Orthodox worldwide is less, perhaps 1/4 the total number of Latin Catholics. The number of Eastern Catholics is far less (though I don’t know the total number of all put together). Altogether, maybe 1.4 billion Latin Catholics, Orthodox and Eastern Catholics combined.

 

[jimmy]

Just taking a quick view of the claimants to the Patriarch of Alexandria leading up to the middle of the 6th century, it appears there still were pro-Chalcedon Patriarchs of Alexandria until the early 480’s. For example: Proterius, Timothy Salophakiolos, John Talaia. After this time, for the 55 years up to the election of Theodosius, in 535, the Patriarchs of Alexandria do indeed seem to be nearly all Miaphysite. This period of nearly all Miaphysite Patriarchs largely coincides with the attempt of reconciliation via acceptance of the Henotikon.

The election of Timothy Auleurus by the supporters of Dioscorus signified the existence of two claimants for the same see. When there was only one Patriarch of Alexandria, it was usually due to the fact that the “previous” Patriarch had either been killed or forcefully booted from the city! Violent times back then!

I do agree that the definitive split took place during Justinian’s reign…

Although, I would add that reconciliation might yet have occurred had not the Muslims conquered Egypt and Syria in the early 7th century.

Everything you said is very true although I think that the chances of reconcilliation in those times would have been very slim even if the muslims did not take over. People were too unwilling to see the other side. The miaphysites were led by theologians like Severus of Antioch who would not consider the possibility that Chalcedon could be interpreted in an orthodox way. Like in his dialogue with John the Grammarian - who was a moderate Chalcedonian who took a position that Chalcedon affirmed Cyril’s theology - he ignores any possibility of agreement. Or the Popes of Rome who held an extreme position that was just as closed to the miaphysites as the miaphysites were closed to Chalcedon. There were attempts at union in Constantinople and the rest of the east but none of these were accepted because Rome expected the miaphysites to be condemned. The henoticon of Zeno and the Ekthesis were nice attempts at reunion but they tended to ignore the difference rather than tackle it head on. The henoticon takes essentially a Cyrillian Christology and doesn’t even discuss Chalcedon.

 

[malphono]

Everything you said is very true although I think that the chances of reconcilliation in those times would have been very slim even if the muslims did not take over. People were too unwilling to see the other side. The miaphysites were led by theologians like Severus of Antioch who would not consider the possibility that Chalcedon could be interpreted in an orthodox way. Like in his dialogue with John the Grammarian - who was a moderate Chalcedonian who took a position that Chalcedon affirmed Cyril’s theology - he ignores any possibility of agreement. Or the Popes of Rome who held an extreme position that was just as closed to the miaphysites as the miaphysites were closed to Chalcedon. There were attempts at union in Constantinople and the rest of the east but none of these were accepted because Rome expected the miaphysites to be condemned. The henoticon of Zeno and the Ekthesis were nice attempts at reunion but they tended to ignore the difference rather than tackle it head on. The henoticon takes essentially a Cyrillian Christology and doesn’t even discuss Chalcedon.

I’m not arguing with you, Jimmy, but I’ll make an observation:

So much of what went on concerning the monophysite/miaphysite “heresy” was motivated more by politics (“the Empire treats non-byzantines like trash” etc) than by real theology. Much the same as with the so-called Nestorian “heresy” (“we live in in the Persian Empire and whether we want to or not we hate the Roman Empire”). Sure, there may have been some theology behind them, but in fact both “heresies” seem to have ceased to exist long ago.

Just my :twocents: for what little it’s worth.

 

[Aramis]

Both the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies were condemned by all the apostolic churches; the misunderstanding was that the “Orthodox Side” in each case presumed that the heresy was far more wide-spread and widely held than was true. Then, adding the terminological and linguistic errors in the explanations, and intractibility of admitting to mistaken interpretations on both sides…

And you wind up with major schisms perpetuated by an essentially non-extant difference.

Miaphysitism is not truly Monophysitism; the two are mistaken for each other. And when poorly translated, defenses of Miaphysitism can be warped into defenses for monophysitism…

 

[Madaglan]

Everything you said is very true although I think that the chances of reconcilliation in those times would have been very slim even if the muslims did not take over. People were too unwilling to see the other side. The miaphysites were led by theologians like Severus of Antioch who would not consider the possibility that Chalcedon could be interpreted in an orthodox way. Like in his dialogue with John the Grammarian - who was a moderate Chalcedonian who took a position that Chalcedon affirmed Cyril’s theology - he ignores any possibility of agreement. Or the Popes of Rome who held an extreme position that was just as closed to the miaphysites as the miaphysites were closed to Chalcedon. There were attempts at union in Constantinople and the rest of the east but none of these were accepted because Rome expected the miaphysites to be condemned. The henoticon of Zeno and the Ekthesis were nice attempts at reunion but they tended to ignore the difference rather than tackle it head on. The henoticon takes essentially a Cyrillian Christology and doesn’t even discuss Chalcedon.

Right, the chances of reconciliation were slim.
It’s interesting how today relations between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox have improved.

 

[Rolltide]

Right, the chances of reconciliation were slim.
It’s interesting how today relations between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox have improved.

Or for that matter, how relations have improved between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Church…

 

[JohnVIII]

If the MP were to reconcile in some fashion with Rome, he could bring something on the order of tens of millions of people with him, if not hundreds of millions.

Like it or not, Rome has to deal constructively with Moscow. If Moscow was willing to make a move toward better relations, even intercommunion, I don’t see the EP realistically standing in it’s way.

If anyone doubts that union between Rome and Moscow is possible, they merely have to look at how ROCOR recently united with the Moscow Patriarchate. I believe that this union was just as remarkable as the union with Rome and Moscow could be. The union occurred very quickly with very few protesting split-offs. Those very few who protested were left in such a state of chaos that even though they were very few in number they were broken up into countless numbers of schisms. I believe union between Rome and Moscow will occur just as quickly as a union between ROCOR and Moscow did. The end result will be that over 95% of the Eastern Orthodox Church will be under the Pope of Rome. The remaining 5% of the Eastern Orthodox Church will be in a state of utter chaos with zero unity amongst themselves.

This is not how I wish things will be, I do not desire union between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, but this is how I believe things will be, whether I like it or not.

 

[marymol]

On this Memorial Day , as the country remembers those who lost their lives in wars, may the prayers of all help us to grow in trust , in the love of our Lord for us each so that we in turn would be able to trust again , through the forgiveness based on His love alone and for the true and full rule of the Holy Spirit , in all areas of our lives !

 

[RosaryKindaGuy]

the diferences however are so very subtle and they do recognize the pope as a bishop so to speak but does that mean the pope is both orthodox and catholic?
they really are pretty much the same with a few tiny variations so i’m glad there is peace

 

[Maronites]

Greetings,

We are Maronite Catholics, one of the 23 rites within the Catholic Church. We are in union with the Pope/Rome. When people see my crucifix and ask if I am Catholic, I answer yes, I am Maronite…then they think I am “Maryonite” “Marianist” or “Orthodox”. I have never heard of the first one and think people just did not hear me and I think they are not ready for me to go into, the first Maronite was St. Maron, a monk born in the middle of the 4th century etc. What I do get from people is “I did not know there were Catholics who were not Latin Rite.” and then we can give them information and set them on the path to finding out more about our large Catholic family.

My husband is a sub deacon and some of the parishioners want him to become a deacon and are hinting that he would be a good priest for the parish. In our rite, he could become a deacon or priest but could not remarry when I die. A married man may become a priest but a priest cannot marry (as previously stated) in any Rite. One is many times in a quandry about God’s calling but at this time my husband would not be a priest. The married Maronite priests are mostly in Lebanon not in the USA (I think about 1/2 are married clergy) and we do not speak Lebanese/Arabic so we would not fare well in Lebanon. Some Latin Rite priests think that by changing “rites” to an Eastern Rite, they can marry…this is not so. No priest can marry after ordination.

We have a few Orthodox Lebanese in our parish but from what I gather, they do not even know they are not in union/communion with the Pope. Like so many, including myself, we are far from knowing the fullness of our Faith.

I am a convert who is still on the path of learning and hope to do so until I leave this world.