C
Cluny
Guest
I’m not going to hold my breath about any kind of reunion or reconciliation between the MP and Rome.
I simply can’t see it happening in my lifetime.
Differences between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox
- Status
I simply can’t see it happening in my lifetime.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
I give it 5 years, tops!
M
malphono
Guest
I’m not holding my breath either. Maybe the EP at some point. Not the other. I can’t see it happening period.
N
NoWings
Guest
I can’t see it happening, period. Moscow and its hardcore, staunch traditionalism communing with Rome? Only if Rome agreed to everything Moscow wanted while giving up nothing.
Which, of course, isn’t ever going to happen.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
It will be mostly the other way around, Moscow will agree to most every thing Rome wants. Once again, if you only knew about the union between ROCOR and the MP, how that all came about, perhaps you would not be so skeptical.
Sadly,
-JohnVIII
R
RoGca
Guest
If you want to better understand the difference between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church please read the letter that I’ve sent to Mrs. Hillary Clinton.
rogca.org/a2-Letter-to-Mrs-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-addressing-the-cultural-and-religious-cleansing-of-the-greek-catholic-community-in-Romania.aspx
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
rogca.org/a2-Letter-to-Mrs-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-addressing-the-cultural-and-religious-cleansing-of-the-greek-catholic-community-in-Romania.aspx
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
T
trophybearer
Guest
I’ve never been more skeptical of anything in my life.
M
mathewjoseph
Guest
I noted a lot of differences between orthodox and catholic churches.
The main point is that as per the catholic theology, Jews are responsible for the death of our Lord.
As per the orthodox theology, high priests are responsible for the death of our Lord.
After this you can see why orthodox bishops are growing beards and use black dresses. This is because bishops are basically high priests, they are apologising by living like this. Also a bishop in an orthodox church has no powers. It is the council of laymen who decides things.
Since Roman catholic church believes that Jews, not high priests are responsible for the death of Jesus, the high priests or bishops in the catholic church lead a good life. They are clean shaved and have absolute powers. A bishop in catholic church is like a king. The properties of the diocese are under him.
But orthodox church teaches that high priests plotted the death of Jesus and Romans crucified our Lord. Note that crucification is the practice of Romans. Jews normally stone people to death.
But now the catholic bishops (high priests) are like kings and Roman catholic church is saying that it is the universal christian church. Is it true?
If we go to the 5th centuries, it is seen that at one time Byzantine church claimed superiority and one time Roman church claimed superiority. It can be found that rome was the capital of Emperor Constantine and he wanted political influence in the church. So he or the council of Nichea declared Rome as a patriarchate.
Later when the capital of Roman empire became Constantinople and emperor there wanted political control, bishop of constantinople became patriarch and ity was declared superior.
Thus we can find that the roman church and Byzantine church evolved because of the Roman empire’s political significance. The first bishop of Constantinople is specified as St Andrew, the Apostle; It is only a legend. As also the case with Rome.
The main point is that as per the catholic theology, Jews are responsible for the death of our Lord.
As per the orthodox theology, high priests are responsible for the death of our Lord.
Code:
Read the bible and find out who is responsible for the crucification of our Lord.Since Roman catholic church believes that Jews, not high priests are responsible for the death of Jesus, the high priests or bishops in the catholic church lead a good life. They are clean shaved and have absolute powers. A bishop in catholic church is like a king. The properties of the diocese are under him.
But orthodox church teaches that high priests plotted the death of Jesus and Romans crucified our Lord. Note that crucification is the practice of Romans. Jews normally stone people to death.
But now the catholic bishops (high priests) are like kings and Roman catholic church is saying that it is the universal christian church. Is it true?
If we go to the 5th centuries, it is seen that at one time Byzantine church claimed superiority and one time Roman church claimed superiority. It can be found that rome was the capital of Emperor Constantine and he wanted political influence in the church. So he or the council of Nichea declared Rome as a patriarchate.
Later when the capital of Roman empire became Constantinople and emperor there wanted political control, bishop of constantinople became patriarch and ity was declared superior.
Thus we can find that the roman church and Byzantine church evolved because of the Roman empire’s political significance. The first bishop of Constantinople is specified as St Andrew, the Apostle; It is only a legend. As also the case with Rome.
Roman cartholic church became the largest church only because priests do not marry. They live for the prosperity of the church.
A
Aramis
Guest
Actualy, the councils left Rome as the head, and Constantinople as second to Rome, but above the other patriarchates.
T
trophybearer
Guest
Could you possibly throw some more mis-information in your post? As it stands it makes me nauseous, but a bit more false info might just lessen the chance of some poor unlearned soul from taking you at your word. Maybe throw something in about freemasons or aliens, perhaps?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
What is this post about? All of the “facts” are wrong, about BOTH Catholicism AND Orthodoxy. Reads like a joke.
M
mathewjoseph
Guest
I found from history that when Portuguese colonialists came to Kerala, India in 15th century, they found christians there using Jewish practices. The portuguese spread the fact that Jews are responsible for the death of our Lord.
Dear syro Malankara
then why the orthodox bishops use black dresses and beards and they lead an acetic life completely different from Roman catholic bishops?
Dear syro Malankara
then why the orthodox bishops use black dresses and beards and they lead an acetic life completely different from Roman catholic bishops?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
The Portuguese weren’t the first to blame the Jews for the death of Christ - I think St. Paul did also… the key is to remember that it was also the fault of the Romans, and all who sin - which means we are all responsible in some ways.
Mr. Joseph, are you Syriac/Malankara Orthodox??
If so, do you think the Portuguese invented the hymn prayed at morning prayer that goes:
Yooden-mar kurisil thooky…
Which orthodox bishops are these? I can find orthodox bishops who live just like roman bishops, both rich and poor, ascetic and less ascetic, etc.
Cardinal O’Malley in Boston has a beard and is from the Franciscan order - does that make him less roman ??
Do the orthodox bishops who are only tonsured to Rabban the day before becoming bishop live especially “ascetic lives”?
R
RoGca
Guest
Hi Mathew,
Please don’t get me wrong, but you can not interpret the whole history of the Church with today’s mind set.
The Eastern Christianity was influenced by the Platonical philosophy. The Western one, with Albert the Great and Thomas d’Aquino, it was influenced by the Aristotle. Each philosopher has a different view about the body and the way man should relate to the world.
Plato said that this world is just a projection of the “world of ideas” therefore is not real and it should be ignored. Also, Plato said that true knowledge comes just by reasoning, therefore any empirical knowledge that comes thru senses is not real.
Aristotle, on the other side, said that the knowledge comes from both reasoning and senses (empirical) and you have to take both of them in consideration when you make judgments.
While Plato ignored the material world focusing just on the spiritual one, Aristotle took both of them in consideration.
Why is this important?
Because Plato had and still has a BIGGGG impact over the Eastern Christianity and you have to understand his philosophy in order to understand the difference between the East and the West.
In East for example, because of the Plato’s philosophy, many Christians went in the desert, deep in the desert, away from the world, which was considered sinful, unworthy fighting for or living in, etc. Many of them even disregarded the minimum needs for their body. There are stories about monks from early centuries of Christianity that didn’t wash for years, or that lived their entire life in a tree, or in a cave, they didn’t cut their hair or beard, etc. Even today there are orthodox monks living like that on the Mount Athos.
In the West, when the Aristotle’s philosophy entered in Europe thru Spain with the Arabs, it changed the whole way of thinking. Check when the first universities appeared in the Western Europe, the big studies, the development of the science, etc.
Besides the difference between East and West caused by the philosophy, there was a LOTTT of political implications as well. The Patriarch from Constantinople always wanted to be equal with the one from Rome. That is the reason why they called Constantinople the “second Rome”. In 1054 when the East “officially” broke the connection with Rome, the Pope was the biggest issue. The Patriarch of Constantinople considered himself equal with the Pope. Well, later, when Constantinople fell under turks, the russians spited from Constantinople and proclaimed Moscow as the “third Rome”. Than later the bulgarians did the same, and the romanians, and others. Luther and the other reformers just took the example from East when they left the Catholic Church about 400 later.
There is much more to say WHY there are differences between East and West, but the situation is not that simple as it appears at the first glance.
H
Harpazo
Guest
Christ has ascended!
There are few historical errors that I think need correcting. First off, it was an Ecumenical Council that declared Constantinople to be the “second Rome.” Constantinople didn’t just take the claim for itself. The Capital of the Empire was moved from Rome to Byzantium (renamed Constantinopolis = Constantine’s City). I don’t see the problem there.
It wasn’t just the Patriarch of Constantinople that considered itself equal to the Patriarch of Rome, but it was all the Patriarchs at that time. In Orthodoxy today, we still see all of the Patriarchs (ALL bishops for that matter) having equal status with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople being primus inter pares, as was the status of Rome before the split. Following the holy canons, the title went to the next in line after Rome. I never heard of Romania or Bulgaria claiming to be “another Rome,” so I’m not sure where that idea comes from. I know the Russians do, and they could probably back up that claim
Another note, it was not the East that left Rome. If I remember correctly, Roman Papal legates, namely Cardinal Umbertus stormed into Agia Sophia during Divine Liturgy and placed the bull of excommunication on the altar. Hardly the East “splitting from Rome” as many Latins claim.
Anyways, back to the topic. I would have to say from the perspective of someone who is becoming Orthodox, the differences between Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not as small as some think, but not as large as some will claim. Ecclesiologically and a few dogmas are what separates us. Almost all Eastern Catholics, save the Maronites, have an Orthodox counterpart.
In Christ,
Andrew
M
Madaglan
Guest
I’m aware that the Ecumenical Councils consider Constantinople the “New Rome,” but I’m not familiar with the Ecumenical Councils regarding Constantinople as the “Second Rome.”Christ has ascended!
There are few historical errors that I think need correcting. First off, it was an Ecumenical Council that declared Constantinople to be the “second Rome.” Constantinople didn’t just take the claim for itself. The Capital of the Empire was moved from Rome to Byzantium (renamed Constantinopolis = Constantine’s City). I don’t see the problem there.
It wasn’t just the Patriarch of Constantinople that considered itself equal to the Patriarch of Rome, but it was all the Patriarchs at that time. In Orthodoxy today, we still see all of the Patriarchs (ALL bishops for that matter) having equal status with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople being primus inter pares, as was the status of Rome before the split. Following the holy canons, the title went to the next in line after Rome. I never heard of Romania or Bulgaria claiming to be “another Rome,” so I’m not sure where that idea comes from. I know the Russians do, and they could probably back up that claim
Another note, it was not the East that left Rome. If I remember correctly, Roman Papal legates, namely Cardinal Umbertus stormed into Agia Sophia during Divine Liturgy and placed the bull of excommunication on the altar. Hardly the East “splitting from Rome” as many Latins claim.
Anyways, back to the topic. I would have to say from the perspective of someone who is becoming Orthodox, the differences between Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not as small as some think, but not as large as some will claim. Ecclesiologically and a few dogmas are what separates us. Almost all Eastern Catholics, save the Maronites, have an Orthodox counterpart.
In Christ,
Andrew
Are you referring to a specific canon?
M
Madaglan
Guest
It’s an oversimplification to argue Platonic East v. Aristotelean West. Long before Aristotle became popular in the West, there was the influence of St. Augustine and Pseudo-Denys, both themselves influenced in their thought by Platonism or Neo-Platonism. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, who is better known for his adoption of Aristotelean thought, drew significantly from Pseudo-Denys.
I wouldn’t say that the Desert Fathers went into the wilderness because of Platonic philosophy. To take just the example of St. Anthony: he went to the desert after hearing a Scripture passage calling for absolute poverty as the means of perfection. Christ went into the wilderness, as did the prophets. The wilderness was where one fought the demons and also where one experienced God.
The Irish monks lived in a similiar manner, taking to remote islands such as Skellig Michael, and undergoing extreme feats of asceticism.
And they didn’t do it because of Platonism.
:irish2:
H
Harpazo
Guest
Ah, yes. I mispoke. Thank you for correcting me, my brother. I don’t know why I said 2nd Rome. I may have seen it from the post I was quoting and didn’t think to change it. My apologies.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
It’s not that big of a mistake. Moscow is called “the third Rome”, so obviously Constantinople would be the second Rome. “And a fourth there shall not be”, the saying goes.Ah, yes. I mispoke. Thank you for correcting me, my brother. I don’t know why I said 2nd Rome. I may have seen it from the post I was quoting and didn’t think to change it. My apologies.
G
gferrer
Guest
As with many others, I am ignorant as to how the union of ROCOR and the MP came about. What aspects of this cause you to think that MP will reunite with Rome?
- Status