Differences between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox

[SyroMalankara]

The Syriac Orthodox believe in the Real Presence without question - they just never used the Latin or Greek phrases to describe the change.

 

[JohnVIII]

The Syriac Orthodox believe in the Real Presence without question - they just never used the Latin or Greek phrases to describe the change.

Then that website is incorrect. The quote says, “The Eucharist is believed to represent the Body and Blood of Christ”. “we do not accept … the bread and wine transmuted into the very Body and Blood of Christ”.

If they deny the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, to me, this is MUCH bigger of an issue than Miaphysite vs Diophysite, or the filioque, or the Primacy of St. Peter.

I’m sorry, it just shocked me!

 

[SyroMalankara]

Then that website is incorrect. The quote says, “The Eucharist is believed to represent the Body and Blood of Christ”. “we do not accept … the bread and wine transmuted into the very Body and Blood of Christ”.

If they deny the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, to me, this is MUCH bigger of an issue than Miaphysite vs Diophysite, or the filioque, or the Primacy of St. Peter.

I’m sorry, it just shocked me!

Giving the author the benefit of the doubt, I think he meant Re-Present, as opposed to “represent” in the only a “mental remembrance” sense.

 

[josethomas2005]

Pope John Paul II visisted the syriac patriarch at Damascus and they together formed declarations stating that monophytism is not at all an issue. The statements is below:
“The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.”

 

[w_stewart]

One difference is the way the creed is said.
In the Western Roman Catholic Church, it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
In most of the Eastern Catholic Churches today, it is said that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Another difference is that in the Eastern Churches, generally they will prefer the use of icons over statues. And generally, when Mary is portrayed in an icon in the East, she is most often with the Christ child in her arms. It is true that there are exceptions to this, but mostly, that is how you will see her. This is not so true in the West, where oftentimes you will see Mary alone and without the Christ child in her arms.

Are these differences rites-related?

 

[ronyodish]

JohnVIII and SyroMalankara,

The Syriac Orthodox Patriarch wrote a lental encyclical in 1991, in which he discusses the Eucharist. Here is the link: The Holy Eucharist

Here are a few of the statements from the encyclical that jump at me:

The Lord gave Himself to His pure disciples in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. He gave the Eucharist in the form of bread and wine before He delivered Himself willingly into the hands of His enemies -the Jews- for crucifixion and death, as a redemption for humanity.

The Book of Acts of the Apostles mentions that the early Christians “Continued steadfastly in the … fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers.” ( Acts 2:42 ), which indicates their actual participation in the Divine Sacrament and the receiving of the Holy Eucharist which is His holy body and blood.

This bloodless sacrifice is a remembrance of the Sacrifice on the Cross and an extension of it and the continuation of its benefits. Furthermore, its true offerer is the Lord Christ, who gave Himself as a redemptive offering on the cross.

The Lord Jesus offers Himself on the Holy Altar as a bloodless sacrifice in the form of bread and wine.

Reading the encyclical, I found nothing heretical in their teaching on the Eucharist. They do believe the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ, given to them in the form of bread and wine.

As far as the earlier link on the Eucharist, I think the author should have worded it better, to avoid confusion. He should have simply stated, like the Patriarch, that the Holy Eucharist is the very Holy Body and Blood of Christ.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Pope John Paul II visisted the syriac patriarch at Damascus and they together formed declarations stating that monophytism is not at all an issue.

Yeah, I tend to think that if, tomorrow, either:

(a) the Pope declared that he was “Primus inter Pares” but not capable of pronouncing infallible Magesterium binding on the whole Church, or

(b) the Archbishop of Constantinople declared that he would accept the Primacy of the Pope of Rome and all pronounced Magesterium,

we could unify the “two lungs” and then go after the Anglicans! (j/k, kinda).

But, common sense and 900 years of historytells us that neither is willing to do either.

And that’s upsetting; to think that a “political” rift should perpetuate a spiritual cleft. Take a Catholic and an Orthodox off the street at random and quizz them about, say the conception and assumption / dormition of the Blessed Mother, and, chances are, you’d get pretty much the same answers.

I’d like to conclude by quoting from the writings of the esteemed theologian John Flansburg of They Might Be Giants, who included a song on their latest children’s album (of which my 2-year-old is a great fan!), which I believe was written about 2 theologians: one Catholic, the other, Orthodox:

Lazy Head and Sleepy Bones
Always disagree
Though everybody says they should be friends
They’re too tired to see
When Sleepy Bones says he’s feeling tired
Lazy Head wants to rest
When Lazy Head says it’s number one
Sleepy Bones says it’s best
When Lazy Head uses imagination
Sleepy Bones daydreams
Sleepy Bones says, It’s not what it looks like
And Lazy Head says, It’s not what it seems
Lazy Head and Sleepy Bones
Always disagree
Though everybody says they should be friends
They’re too tired to see
When Lazy Head says somebody’s skinny
Sleepy Bones says thin
When Sleepy Bones says identical
Lazy Head says twin
When Lazy Head says the window is closed
Sleepy Bones says it’s shut
When Sleepy Bones says that something isn’t
Lazy Head says, It’s not
Lazy Head and Sleepy Bones
Both take naps so long
And even though they should be friends
They can’t get along
Lazy Head and Sleepy Bones
Always disagree
Though everybody says they should be friends
They’re too tired to see

– N.

 

[JohnVIII]

Again I think you are simplifying a host of issues. The Eastern Orthodox elevation by some of its theologians of Platonic philosophy is in contrast to the Antiochian (Syriac) and Alexandrian (Coptic) schools.

As to the Syriac view of the Primacy of Peter and the Syriac Patriarchal successors:

syrianchurch.org/Articles/PrimacyofStPeter.htm

socdigest.org/articles/11sept05.html

indianchristianity.org/syrian.html

Okay, with regard to the question of how the Syrian Orthodox Church views the primacy of St. Peter. I read through the links you provided and they basically say they view the primacy of St. Peter the same as the Roman Catholic Church does, and they boast that they are not prone to schism’s because of this as the Orthodox churches are. But I don’t see how they explain what they mean by this. Does the Syrian Orthodox Church believe that their patriarch has universal jurisdiction and has infallibility and cannot be deposed by anybody other than himself, as the Roman Catholic pope does? And if they don’t go quite that far than what it is about their patriarch that makes them less prone to schism’s?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Hello Marduk,

long time no see
Hope you doing well,

It is great to see you again as well. I always enjoy your erudite comments. I wish I had more time, but I will be very busy in the next two weeks, so I will only participate sporadically, if at all. Please accept the following responses (not very detailed for lack of time, I’m afraid).

Reading the above statement, I find it to be at odd with the History of RCC, speaking mostly the period post-12th and 13th century, just to mention one (inquisition).

The Inquisiition never participated in forced conversions. In fact, it was during that period when the Catholic Church instituted its laws against forced conversions. The Inquisition was, in fact, intended to ensure that conversions were genuine. Any forced conversions that may have occured was due to the secular power (which happened to be Catholic), and even them, due to LOCAL secular authorities. A case in point is Spain. Before the Inquisition began, some local secular officials were forcing conversions of Jews, and it was King Ferdinand who protested, reminding his officials of the Church’s laws against forced conversions.

The same thing happened in the See of Antioch EO. or OO when the Jesuits, Carmelites, fransiscans, dominicans etc… came to the Land of Antioch they split every thing that is orthodox into two, and this was a major blow to the Christians of the East, it got them weaker, But by the Grace of GOD I think now we started to see some signs of Hope, of reunifications, last Pascha(Easter) in one of the towns in the Lebanese mountain, the Melkites decided to rejoin their Orthodox brothers and siters in Pascha, from what I have heard that tears were shed by all the clergy when the Melkite walked out of their Church to join the Orthodox they found that the Orthodox clergy and People already waiting for them outside, then from neighboring towns the Maronites also joined the Orthodox and the Melkites, People were radiant the Holy Spirit††† is at work. shweir.com/churches.htm

As an Oriental, I would view the actions of the Byzantines as more divisive of Antiochene Christianity. You seem to forget forget the history between the OO and EO in your zeal to blame Catholic missionaries. You speak of signs of hope, which is good. I would remind you that the Syriac Orthodox and the Catholic Church already have OFFICIAL Christological Agreements, as well as OFFICIAL pastoral provisions for limited sharing of the Sacraments, something that the EO and the SO don’t have. Any efforts at ecumenism by the EO towards the SO will have to seriously involve the Catholic Church(es) in the area. Anti-Catholicism simply has no place in the ecumenistic endeavors among the Syrian Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

JohnVIII and SyroMalankara,
As far as the earlier link on the Eucharist, I think the author should have worded it better, to avoid confusion. He should have simply stated, like the Patriarch, that the Holy Eucharist is the very Holy Body and Blood of Christ.

The answer might be as simple as the fact that English is not the native language of the author. I noticed a few irregularities in tenses and noun-verb complements.

Or it could be that the dogma of transubstantiation is simply misunderstood. At the following website, Transubstantiation is denied, but a few paragraphs later, the author expresses belief in nothing more or less than Transubstantiation itself :

“In the Anaphora of St James, we ask God the Father to “ send the Holy Spirit upon us and upon the Eucharist placed on the altar”. The Holy Spirit descends and makes the bread and the wine the very body and blood of Christ. The same Spirit comes and abides in us to make us the Church, the Body of Christ.”
malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=242

Blessings

 

[josethomas2005]

Okay, with regard to the question of how the Syrian Orthodox Church views the primacy of St. Peter. I read through the links you provided and they basically say they view the primacy of St. Peter the same as the Roman Catholic Church does, and they boast that they are not prone to schism’s because of this as the Orthodox churches are. But I don’t see how they explain what they mean by this. Does the Syrian Orthodox Church believe that their patriarch has universal jurisdiction and has infallibility and cannot be deposed by anybody other than himself, as the Roman Catholic pope does? And if they don’t go quite that far than what it is about their patriarch that makes them less prone to schism’s?

In the first centuries, it already had the universal jurisdiction. Read the letters of Ignatius.

 

[ronyodish]

The answer might be as simple as the fact that English is not the native language of the author. I noticed a few irregularities in tenses and noun-verb complements.

Or it could be that the dogma of transubstantiation is simply misunderstood. At the following website, Transubstantiation is denied, but a few paragraphs later, the author expresses belief in nothing more or less than Transubstantiation itself :

“In the Anaphora of St James, we ask God the Father to “ send the Holy Spirit upon us and upon the Eucharist placed on the altar”. The Holy Spirit descends and makes the bread and the wine the very body and blood of Christ. The same Spirit comes and abides in us to make us the Church, the Body of Christ.”
malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/in…=16&Itemid=242

Blessings,

Marduk,

I did notice a few problems with his English, which seems to contribute to the poor phrasing of that paragraph and the article in general. I also agree that transubstantiation might just not be very well understood by others. The CCC expresses it in paragraph 1376. The preceding paragraph, 1375, and the earlier paragraph, 1333, expresses how the consecration or conversion takes place, that is, by both the word of Christ (or Words of Institution) and by the action or invocation of the Holy Spirit (or Epiclesis).

The underlying meaning of transubstantiation is the same for Latins and Syriacs, but whether one expresses it with the Latin word “transsubstantiatio” or not, does not alter the faith in the Real Presence itself, whereby the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

God bless,

Rony

P.S. By the way, I’ve learned that the Greeks use the term “metousiosis” to express the same reality of the Real Presence.

 

[Ignatios]

Again I think you are simplifying a host of issues.
mardukm;5440448:

…As an Oriental, I would view the actions of the Byzantines as more divisive of Antiochene Christianity. You seem to forget forget the history between the OO and EO in your zeal to blame Catholic missionaries. You speak of signs of hope, which is good. I would remind you that the Syriac Orthodox and the Catholic Church already have OFFICIAL Christological Agreements, as well as OFFICIAL pastoral provisions for limited sharing of the Sacraments, something that the EO and the SO don’t have. Any efforts at ecumenism by the EO towards the SO will have to seriously involve the Catholic Church(es) in the area. Anti-Catholicism simply has no place in the ecumenistic endeavors among the Syrian Churches.

Dear Syro and Marduk, I combined both of your replies since the answer to these points are basically the same, there is a great deal of assumptions In both of your replies, for what I have mentioned before is not of myself but according to both Syriac orthodox ( or the Oriental Orthodox) and Eastern Orthodox in the Council of 1972 that took place in the Balamand Monastery in Lebanon(was followed by many councils after) and it was published in Arabic and English in a book called Towards Orthodox Unity by the MECC, for the lack of time let me refer both of you to the Syriac Orthodox Official site, in which it answer directly to what you both have mentioned in the above, which it contradict your assumption:

" Relationships with the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches Among all Christian Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are closer to the Oriental Churches in spirituality, doctrine, and in historical experience. Dialogue with this family of Churches has the potential to be the most fruitful. Unofficial consultations were held in Aarhus (Denmark) in 1964 and in Bristol (England) in 1967, attended by leading theologians from the two sides; there were further meetings in Geneva (1970) and Addis Abbaba (1971). The results were unexpectedly positive. As Bishop Timothy Kallistos Ware of Dioklea states in his book, The Orthodox Church (1993), it became clear that on the basic question which had led historically to the division—the doctrine of the person of Christ—there is in fact no real disagreement. The divergence, it was stated in Aarhus, lies only on the level of phraseology. The delegates concluded, 'We recognize in each other the one Orthodox faith of the Church… On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement…" More in the link below:

sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/index.html

Again… " After fifteen centuries of division, the later 20th century was marked with the beginning of an intensive and fruitful theological dialogue between the Orthodox and the Oriental Churches, in which the Russian Orthodox Church took part for many years as a member of the pan-Orthodox representation.*** As a result of this dialogue, agreements were reached and signed by church representatives. The most important of them was “The Second Common Statement and Proposals to the Churches” (1990, Chambesy, Switzerland). It stated that the faith of the two families was essentially identical***, while differing only in notions. This document was sent to the Churches for consideration and reception. sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/20010906oorojtcmtg2.html

As for the their meeting with the RCC, let me list the whole Paragraph since it is not all that long:
" Relationships with the Roman Catholic Church Dialogue between the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church was initiated under the auspices of the Pro Oriente, an ecumenical foundation in Vienna, founded by Cardinal König, Archbishop of Vienna in 1964. Pro Oriente initiated unofficial consultations with the Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians in Vienna in 1971, 1976, and 1988. In 1994, the Pro Oriente constituted a Syriac Commission at its meeting in Lebanon for dialogue between eight Churches (including three Catholic rites) of Syriac tradition; three Syriac Consultations have been held in 1994 and 1996 at Vienna and in 1997 at Chicago. The Pro Oriente consultations focussing particularly on the Christological doctrines resulted in what is known today as Vienna Christological Formulations and paved the way for subsequent bilateral Christological agreements between the heads of the Churches. The first of these during the reign of Patriarch Mor Ignatius Yaqub III of Antioch and Pope Paul VI of Rome resulted in a joint declaration issued in Vatican on October 27, 1971 signed by Patriarch Yaqub III and Pope Paul VI. This dialogue was continued by their Holinesses Patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, and Pope John Paul II and culminated in a joint declaration on June 23, 1984 at Rome. In November 1993, the Joint Theological Commission of the Catholic and the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Churches drafted an agreement on inter-church marriages, known today as the “Kerala Agreement.” This was approved by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Zakka I and released on January 25, 1994."

Now, Let the readers judge for themselves

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

…The Eastern Orthodox elevation by some of its theologians of Platonic philosophy is in contrast to the Antiochian (Syriac) and Alexandrian (Coptic) schools. As to the Syriac view of the Primacy of Peter and the Syriac Patriarchal successors:

Okay as for the above, let me get the last one first, St Peter’s primacy is not a dogmatic issue at least in the Orthodox Church, then, the Orthodox Church acknowledge the Primacy Of St Peter however the understanding of that primacy it developed to be understood differently in the RCC, therefore you are not matching apples with apples.

Now, back to the top, the Orthodox Church is not elevated by Platonic theologians, it is the Church who elevate the theologians, the Orthodox Church is elevated by the Apostolic Teaching whom the HEAD of all and in all is CHRIST.

BUT, if you think that some theologian elevated the OC than they did not through Platonic Philosophy, but through an Apostolic Teaching ( Holy Tradition).

Now, It would be helpful for me and the readers if you attach a Reason to your statement concerning this elevation by platonic philosophy, such as, How they elevated the Church and what are their names? Is there some theologians in the Church that has a Platonic background? of course, One come quickly to my mind and the Church censored the platonic philosophy in his teaching and rejected them in which those teachings are a one of the major disagreement between the Orthodox Church and the RCC, that would be Augustine and the point that I am talking about is the understanding of the Original Sin, another comes to mind, St. Gregory of Nyssa, he also had some origenist ( Origen was platonic) tone in “some” of his witting, and therefore we do not find him among St Basil and St Gregory the theologian or St Chrysostom, also that is why he is not a doctor in the RCCwhere the others are. so your statement with all due respect doesn’t hold water.

Pope John Paul II visisted the syriac patriarch at Damascus and they together formed declarations stating that monophytism is not at all an issue. The statements is below: “The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.”

I agree with above 1000% and it falls in the same line as I described earlier.

Dear brother Ignatios, …The Inquisiition never participated in forced conversions. In fact, it was during that period when the Catholic Church instituted its laws against forced conversions. The Inquisition was, in fact, intended to ensure that conversions were genuine. Any forced conversions that may have occured was due to the secular power (which happened to be Catholic), and even them, due to LOCAL secular authorities. A case in point is Spain. Before the Inquisition began, some local secular officials were forcing conversions of Jews, and it was King Ferdinand who protested, reminding his officials of the Church’s laws against forced conversions…

Dear Marduk, We know great deal of the history, In the above it is like you are trying to block the sun with your finger, Everybody knows about the Inquisition and most if not all knows the reasons fro it, and as many RCs say “it is a black spot on us”, I mean, shall I post the history of it, I will a little just to convince you but if needed I will all of it:

“…One more step remained to be taken. By the famous bull ad exstirpanda, of 1252, Innocent IV. authorized torture as a measure for extorting confessions. The merciless use of this weapon was one of the most atrocious features of the whole procedure…” ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc5.ii.xii.ix.html?highlight=pope,innocent,iv,ad,exstirpanda#highlight

"…The Church, after sitting in judgment, turned the heretics over to the civil authorities, knowing full well that, as night follows day, the sentence of death would follow her sentence of excommunication.11171117 The usual expression for turning heretics over to the civil tribunal was saeculari judiciore relinquere, and for perpetual imprisonment, in perpetuum carcerem retrudiorperpetuo commorari.teran forbade priests pronouncing judgments of blood and being present at executions, but at the very same moment, and at the pope’s persistent instigation, crusading armies were drenching the soil of Southern France with the blood of the Albigenses. A writer of the thirteenth century says in part truly, in part speciously, "our pope does not kill nor condemn any one to death, but the law puts to death those whom the pope allows to be put to death, and they kill themselves who do those things which make them guilty of death.“1118 …” ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc5.ii.xii.ix.html?highlight=pope,innocent,iv,ad,exstirpanda#highlight

“2X2=4 and the other say that 2+2=4” - I like that analogy! Can I use that? Amen! to everything you say! I pray earnestly for the reunion of the Syrian Orthodox and the Antiochian Orthodox!

BY ALL MEANS BROTHER, PLEASE DO:thumbsup:

GOD bless you all †††

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Dear Syro and Marduk, I combined both of your replies since the answer to these points are basically the same, there is a great deal of assumptions In both of your replies, for what I have mentioned before is not of myself but according to both Syriac orthodox ( or the Oriental Orthodox) and Eastern Orthodox in the Council of 1972 that took place in the Balamand Monastery in Lebanon(was followed by many councils after) and it was published in Arabic and English in a book called Towards Orthodox Unity by the MECC, for the lack of time let me refer both of you to the Syriac Orthodox Official site, in which it answer directly to what you both have mentioned in the above, which it contradict your assumption:
…

As for the their meeting with the RCC, let me list the whole Paragraph since it is not all that long:
" Relationships with the Roman Catholic Church Dialogue between the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church was initiated under the auspices of the Pro Oriente, an ecumenical foundation in Vienna, founded by Cardinal König, Archbishop of Vienna in 1964. Pro Oriente initiated unofficial consultations with the Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians in Vienna in 1971, 1976, and 1988. In 1994, the Pro Oriente constituted a Syriac Commission at its meeting in Lebanon for dialogue between eight Churches (including three Catholic rites) of Syriac tradition; three Syriac Consultations have been held in 1994 and 1996 at Vienna and in 1997 at Chicago. The Pro Oriente consultations focussing particularly on the Christological doctrines resulted in what is known today as Vienna Christological Formulations and paved the way for subsequent bilateral Christological agreements between the heads of the Churches. The first of these during the reign of Patriarch Mor Ignatius Yaqub III of Antioch and Pope Paul VI of Rome resulted in a joint declaration issued in Vatican on October 27, 1971 signed by Patriarch Yaqub III and Pope Paul VI. This dialogue was continued by their Holinesses Patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, and Pope John Paul II and culminated in a joint declaration on June 23, 1984 at Rome. In November 1993, the Joint Theological Commission of the Catholic and the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Churches drafted an agreement on inter-church marriages, known today as the “Kerala Agreement.” This was approved by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Zakka I and released on January 25, 1994."

Now, Let the readers judge for themselves

continued…

There have likewise been several statements on similarities between the CC and OO from the hierarchs, and not just in the area of Christology.

As already stated, the big difference between the CC/OO talks and the EO/OO talks is that the CC/OO talks have had FORMAL and OFFICIAL approvals from the CC and OO hierarchies. The EO/OO talks have not borne the same fruit (except to a limited extent between the Coptic Orthodox and the EO Alexandrian Patriarchate - an agreement which, nevethless, is not as far-reaching as the Syrian Orthodox/Catholic official pastoral agreements, btw).

Further, there is a very powerful and influential faction in EO’xy which opposes the ecumenical talks between EO and OO - namely, Mt. Athos.

And let’s not forget the dates of these INformal statements between EO and OO (70’s and 80’s). I (and others here) have noticed that there is a modern and strongly influential movement within EO’xy - which, for lack of a better term, I’ll call, Neo-Eastern Orthodoxy - which tries to create false dichotomies between Catholicism and EO’xy on a whole array of matters - original sin vs. ancestral sin. Essence/Energies vs. unity of God, Atonement vs. deification, etc. ,etc. ,etc. ,etc. etc. The problem is that the false dichotomies of these Neo-EO’xy also has repercussions for the relationship between EO and OO. For though in many areas the EOC and OOC are more similar to each other than to the CC, we cannot overlook that in many areas, the CC and OOC are more similar to each other than to the EOC. And it is in those very areas of similarity between CC and OOC that Neo-EO’xy unthinkingly seeks to create its false dichotomies.

As you stated, let the readers judge for themselves.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Okay as for the above, let me get the last one first, St Peter’s primacy is not a dogmatic issue at least in the Orthodox Church, then, the Orthodox Church acknowledge the Primacy Of St Peter however the understanding of that primacy it developed to be understood differently in the RCC, therefore you are not matching apples with apples.

As brother SyroMalankara has pointed out, the issue of St. Peter’s primacy is indeed a matter of dogma within the SOC. You can’t casually brush that aside, even if you as an Eastern Orthodox view the matter merely as one of ecclesiology and not doctrine. How do you deal with that? The OO in general disagree with the EO view that the office of head bishop is borne out of church politics, and not from a divine mandate obtained from the Apostles themselves.

Dear Marduk, We know great deal of the history, In the above it is like you are trying to block the sun with your finger, Everybody knows about the Inquisition and most if not all knows the reasons fro it, and as many RCs say “it is a black spot on us”, I mean, shall I post the history of it, I will a little just to convince you but if needed I will all of it:

“…One more step remained to be taken. By the famous bull ad exstirpanda, of 1252, Innocent IV. authorized torture as a measure for extorting confessions. The merciless use of this weapon was one of the most atrocious features of the whole procedure…” ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc5.ii.xii.ix.html?highlight=pope,innocent,iv,ad,exstirpanda#highlight

"…The Church, after sitting in judgment, turned the heretics over to the civil authorities, knowing full well that, as night follows day, the sentence of death would follow her sentence of excommunication.11171117 The usual expression for turning heretics over to the civil tribunal was saeculari judiciore relinquere, and for perpetual imprisonment, in perpetuum carcerem retrudiorperpetuo commorari.teran forbade priests pronouncing judgments of blood and being present at executions, but at the very same moment, and at the pope’s persistent instigation, crusading armies were drenching the soil of Southern France with the blood of the Albigenses. A writer of the thirteenth century says in part truly, in part speciously, "our pope does not kill nor condemn any one to death, but the law puts to death those whom the pope allows to be put to death, and they kill themselves who do those things which make them guilty of death.“1118 …” ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc5.ii.xii.ix.html?highlight=pope,innocent,iv,ad,exstirpanda#highlight

I don’t see anything in your quotes that states conversions were forced. Please point it out exactly.

And I’m not exactly sure what your point regarding the Albigenses is. Is what occurred with the Albigenses to be considered much worse than what occurred with the Arians? Next time you bring up such points, please be certain, first of all, that it does not expose you to the charge of prejudice or of applying double-standards. That way, our discussions can be as debate-free as possible.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

I don’t see anything in your quotes that states conversions were forced. Please point it out exactly.

There is a famous case of a Jewish boy who was kidnapped from his parents on orders from Pope Pius IX and forced to convert to Roman Catholicism against the will of his parents.
The six year old boy was forcibly kidnapped on 23 June 1858 and under force of armed police was taken to Rome and forced to be raised as a Catholic. The Chuch told the Jewish parents that they could have their son back if they renounced Judaism and converted to Catholicism, otherwise the parents would not be able to have their son back.
BTW, Pope Pius IX, who ordered the kidnapping, is up for canonisation for Sainthood in the RCC.

 

[bobzills]

I don’t see anything in your quotes that states conversions were forced. Please point it out exactly.

According to an article written by Israeli historian M. Shelach in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, vol 1, p. 328, “A bishops’ conference that met in Zagreb in November 1941 was not… prepared to denounce the forced conversion of Serbs that had taken place in the summer of 1941, let alone condemn the persecution and murder of Serbs and Jews.”

 

[Ghosty]

There is a famous case of a Jewish boy who was kidnapped from his parents on orders from Pope Pius IX and forced to convert to Roman Catholicism against the will of his parents.
The six year old boy was forcibly kidnapped on 23 June 1858 and under force of armed police was taken to Rome and forced to be raised as a Catholic. The Chuch told the Jewish parents that they could have their son back if they renounced Judaism and converted to Catholicism, otherwise the parents would not be able to have their son back.
BTW, Pope Pius IX, who ordered the kidnapping, is up for canonisation for Sainthood in the RCC.

The boy was not forced to convert; he had been Baptized as an infant and was taken in order to be raised according to his spiritual status as a Christian. He was no more forced to convert to Catholicism than he was forced to convert to Judaism, regardless of how we may disagree with the moves made at the time to ensure he was raised in accordance with his Baptism.

Peace and God bless!

 

[bobzills]

The boy was not forced to convert; he had been Baptized as an infant and was taken in order to be raised according to his spiritual status as a Christian. He was no more forced to convert to Catholicism than he was forced to convert to Judaism, regardless of how we may disagree with the moves made at the time to ensure he was raised in accordance with his Baptism.

Peace and God bless!

First of all there is no proof that the Baptism was valid, but in any case, it was done forcibly against the will of his parents.
The six year old boy was kidnapped on orders of the Pope against the will of his parents who did not want him to be brought up as a Catholic. His parents were told if they wanted him back, then they would have to convert to Catholicism, otherwise they could not have their own son back. His parents never wanted him to be baptised and the six year old was baptised agaisnt the will of his parnets. Sounds like a forced conversion and forced kidnapping of a Jewish boy to me.
Personally, I am against kidnapping six year old Jewish boys and bringing them up as Catholics against the will of their parents. The parents were blackmailed by Pope Pius IX- you can’t have your kidnapped son back unless you convert to Roman Catholicism. We will give you your kidnapped son back only if you convert from Judaism to Roman Catholicism.