Do Catholics and Orthodox argue about this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrZetterlund
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MrZetterlund

Guest
Is there by any chance any controversy between Orthodox Christians and Catholics over who was the first Church of Jesus Christ?
 
MrZetterlund said:
Is there by any chance any controversy between Orthodox Christians and Catholics over who was the first Church of Jesus Christ?
Click to expand...
Our ‘argument’ is not in our origin, since we are the same…Catholic!

The argument is in who departed from the lineage established by Christ and The apostles…again, something we share!

The ‘amusing’ confusion arises in the argumentations of validation of each position.

:cool:
 
Deconi said:
The argument is in who departed from the lineage established by Christ and The apostles
Click to expand...
And of course we know that it was Rome who separated Herself from the other four Patriarchates. 😃
 
Mickey said:
And of course we know that it was Rome who separated Herself from the other four Patriarchates. 😃
Click to expand...
but thats not a conclusive argument that the 4 is correct over the 1

truth is not a democracy
 
Mickey said:
And of course we know that it was Rome who separated Herself from the other four Patriarchates. 😃
Click to expand...
I’m sorry I think you have your history a little mixed up. 😃

I look forward when we are all united again.

ChadS
 
Mickey said:
And of course we know that it was Rome who separated Herself from the other four Patriarchates. 😃
Click to expand...
If I understand the situation correctly, isn’t it interesting that Antioch (i.e. Syriac Orthodox) and Alexandria (i.e. Coptic Orthodox) separated early on (becoming part of the “Oriental Orthodox” communion), and the Eastern Orthodox established patriarchates there after that (i.e. the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria). Why did this not happen with Rome?
 
TheosisM said:
(i.e. the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria).
Click to expand...
Uh… that would be Constantinople—eh?
TheosisM said:
Why did this not happen with Rome?
Click to expand...
Because Rome became increasingly power hungry as She continued to churn out new and formerly unknown doctrines culminating in the doctrine of Papal supremacy/infallibility which was fueled by the ultramontanists in the 19th century. It did not help matters that Rome had to deal with multiple spin-off groups (reformers) who were disillusioned by Rome’s heavy hand.

That’s the short answer. 😃
 
Mickey said:
Uh… that would be Constantinople—eh?
Because Rome became increasingly power hungry as She continued to churn out new and formerly unknown doctrines culminating in the doctrine of Papal supremacy/infallibility which was fueled by the ultramontanists in the 19th century. It did not help matters that Rome had to deal with multiple spin-off groups (reformers) who were disillusioned by Rome’s heavy hand.

That’s the short answer. 😃
Click to expand...
Perhaps a longer answer may be helpful. I’m trying to understand why Constantinople (or anyone else) did not establish a patriarchate in Rome in the same way that it did in Antioch and Alexandria, after the original churches there went into schism.
 
TheosisM said:
Perhaps a longer answer may be helpful. I’m trying to understand why Constantinople (or anyone else) did not establish a patriarchate in Rome in the same way that it did in Antioch and Alexandria, after the original churches there went into schism.
Click to expand...
There are many Orthodox in Rome. Rome used to be an Orthodox Patriarchate but She separated Herself (schism). We are waiting for Her to return. 👍
 
Mickey said:
There are many Orthodox in Rome. Rome used to be an Orthodox Patriarchate but She separated Herself (schism). We are waiting for Her to return. 👍
Click to expand...
uh, I don’t think that answers my question, but thanks. 😉
 
TheosisM said:
Perhaps a longer answer may be helpful. I’m trying to understand why Constantinople (or anyone else) did not establish a patriarchate in Rome in the same way that it did in Antioch and Alexandria, after the original churches there went into schism.
Click to expand...
It’s not that hard to understand. Look at the geopolitical situation when the non-Chalcedonians broke from the Church and compare that to when Rome finally broke away (if you can give that an exact date). By the time of the Fourth Crusade the Byzantine Empire was in steady decline and the Latin sack of the city only accelerated it. The Greeks were in no position to set up an Orthodox bishop of Rome if they had wanted to.

As to modern times in a recent court case in Great Britain a bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate stated that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens for the Bishop of Rome.

Here is the link. (paragraphs 37 and 38)

Yours in Christ
Joe
 
josephdaniel29 said:
It’s not that hard to understand. Look at the geopolitical situation when the non-Chalcedonians broke from the Church and compare that to when Rome finally broke away (if you can give that an exact date). By the time of the Fourth Crusade the Byzantine Empire was in steady decline and the Latin sack of the city only accelerated it. The Greeks were in no position to set up an Orthodox bishop of Rome if they had wanted to.

As to modern times in a recent court case in Great Britain a bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate stated that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens for the Bishop of Rome.

Here is the link. (paragraphs 37 and 38)

Yours in Christ
Joe
Click to expand...
Okay this I can understand, thank you.

Is it too late to establish a patriarchate of Rome?
 
Now That is a very interesting question!🙂
TheosisM said:
If I understand the situation correctly, isn’t it interesting that Antioch (i.e. Syriac Orthodox) and Alexandria (i.e. Coptic Orthodox) separated early on (becoming part of the “Oriental Orthodox” communion), and the Eastern Orthodox established patriarchates there after that (i.e. the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria). Why did this not happen with Rome?
Click to expand...
 
That makes sense. Thanks Joe!
josephdaniel29 said:
It’s not that hard to understand. Look at the geopolitical situation when the non-Chalcedonians broke from the Church and compare that to when Rome finally broke away (if you can give that an exact date). By the time of the Fourth Crusade the Byzantine Empire was in steady decline and the Latin sack of the city only accelerated it. The Greeks were in no position to set up an Orthodox bishop of Rome if they had wanted to.

As to modern times in a recent court case in Great Britain a bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate stated that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens for the Bishop of Rome.

Here is the link. (paragraphs 37 and 38)

Yours in Christ
Joe
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top