Eastern Orthodoxy.

[Timi_Celcer]

I started doing some research on the Orthodox faith and i found a lot of doubt in my Catholic faith. I have some issues that make me think that Eastern Orthodoxy might be true.
The biggest is about the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. I cannot find any good evidence that Church fathers thought of him as the head we think of him today. After reading some literature, i saw that in reality, the bishop of Rome might just have had the same authority as other bishops. Peter was actually the bishop of Antioch before becoming the bishop of Rome. I really struggle to find any good evidence that the bishop of Rome was truly supreme at the time. After reading, it makes more sense that he just had control because of the importance of the city. After that, the dogma might developed

Second. Mark of Ephesus prevented a union between the RCC and the EOC at the Council of Florence pushed by the Byzantine emperor. Mark was actually the only bishop refusing to sign. He refused to sign and then two days later, the patriarch of Constantinople died destroying any chance of a union. It seems like God prevented the union. Why?

I really struggle with this, i dont know what to do. I need your help to find the truth.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Peter was actually the bishop of Antioch before becoming the bishop of Rome.

The fact that Peter was first Bishop of Antioch before becoming Bishop in Rome (assuming that this is in fact the case, as I seem to remember seeing an argument that Peter was actually in Rome first and then went to Antioch while in exile from Rome due to threats on his life and then returned to Rome) does no damage to the claim that the bishop of Rome is his rightful successor. The office of the head of the universal church, the keeper of the keys to the kingdom, remained with Peter throughout his life. So when he left Antioch the office of the head of the church went with him. That office did not pass from him until his death, and the last place that that office resided was in Rome. It would not make sense for the office to revert back to an earlier See that Peter had founded but subsequently left. No, it would remain with the See in which he was last active, which was Rome.

Also, some of the following links may help:

Why I Didn’t Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy - Fr. Brian Harrison O.S.

Eastern Orthodoxy

A Response to Orthodox Critiques of Catholic Apostolicity

The Development of the Papacy (John Henry Cardinal Newman)

Eastern Fathers on the Primacy of Peter

Peter’s Primacy (Fathers)

Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox - Jimmy Akin

Peter’s Successors

The Papacy in Scripture - No Rocks Required

 

[InflatusMaximus]

I started doing some research on the Orthodox faith and i found a lot of doubt in my Catholic faith. I have some issues that make me think that Eastern Orthodoxy might be true.
The biggest is about the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. I cannot find any good evidence that Church fathers thought of him as the head we think of him today. After reading some literature, i saw that in reality, the bishop of Rome might just have had the same authority as other bishops. Peter was actually the bishop of Antioch before becoming the bishop of Rome. I really struggle to find any good evidence that the bishop of Rome was truly supreme at the time. After reading, it makes more sense that he just had control because of the importance of the city. After that, the dogma might developed

Second. Mark of Ephesus prevented a union between the RCC and the EOC at the Council of Florence pushed by the Byzantine emperor. Mark was actually the only bishop refusing to sign. He refused to sign and then two days later, the patriarch of Constantinople died destroying any chance of a union. It seems like God prevented the union. Why?

I really struggle with this, i dont know what to do. I need your help to find the truth.

Forget the early Fathers…listen to Jesus.

Matt 16 16-20

Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] **And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. **[19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [20] Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

 

[SPH1]

Second. Mark of Ephesus prevented a union between the RCC and the EOC at the Council of Florence pushed by the Byzantine emperor. Mark was actually the only bishop refusing to sign. He refused to sign and then two days later, the patriarch of Constantinople died destroying any chance of a union. It seems like God prevented the union. Why?

I really struggle with this, i dont know what to do. I need your help to find the truth.

Or maybe Satan prevented the union. Really, you’re reading too much into this. But since you have basically decided that it was from God, you have set your course.

If EO is the true church and form of Christianity, how come it has seemed so isolated for centuries? Laboring under Islam and then Communism, couldn’t these be divine signs against EO, as punishment for separating from the Western Church? I think that the EO Church is in our minds of recent mainly because of the rise of Islam in the world mind, focusing on those parts of the world.

A true EO would have to say that the Bishop of Rome is at least first among equals. But I suspect that a Protestantizing mind-set has invaded EO in part due to Protestant converts, so I’m not even sure about first among equals now.

 

[Bballer32]

Forget the early Fathers…listen to Jesus.

Umm yes listen to Jesus, but no do not forget the Early Fathers. They are important to help us understand how the church was handled and formed from the time of the apostles until the medieval age.

 

[InflatusMaximus]

Umm yes listen to Jesus, but no do not forget the Early Fathers. They are important to help us understand how the church was handled and formed from the time of the apostles until the medieval age.

But they ultimately are human. They fall.

Jesus doesn’t fall. He rises. I put my whole trust in Him not in the Church necessarily.

But since He says the above in the Gospel of Matthew I trust Him to be correct. I do not need to read the Catholic forefathers to believe that the Church is the Church. Just Jesus.

The OP is stating he is confused as to whether EO is more true or not. He is looking to the founding folks to support his cause that there is essentially no primacy in Rome, and it isn’t necessarily seen in the writings of the forefathers. I am just suggesting that we don’t need to go to the founders, because the Original founder is Jesus.

 

[InflatusMaximus]

Just to clarify…

I do believe that I see plenty of the early fathers indicating this Catholic Church. But the OP is seriously doubting this and the OP is not “necessarily seeing in the writings of the forefathers the primacy of Rome.”

 

[MichaelinMD]

The fact that Peter was first Bishop of Antioch before becoming Bishop in Rome (assuming that this is in fact the case, as I seem to remember seeing an argument that Peter was actually in Rome first and then went to Antioch while in exile from Rome due to threats on his life and then returned to Rome) does no damage to the claim that the bishop of Rome is his rightful successor. The office of the head of the universal church, the keeper of the keys to the kingdom, remained with Peter throughout his life. So when he left Antioch the office of the head of the church went with him. That office did not pass from him until his death, and the last place that that office resided was in Rome. It would not make sense for the office to revert back to an earlier See that Peter had founded but subsequently left. No, it would remain with the See in which he was last active, which was Rome.

Also, some of the following links may help:

---

Why I Didn’t Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy - Fr. Brian Harrison O.S.***

As one who was baptized Catholic (Eastern), became Orthodox and then returned to the Catholic Church I found the above article not only fascinating but right on the money! Thanks for posting it!!

In Christ,
MinM

 

[Timi_Celcer]

I read the some writings of some of the Church fathers and became convinced that the bishop of Rome was never thought as equal among bishops, this was an Orthodox invention. I guess i made too many conclusions too fast.

 

[Bballer32]

But they ultimately are human. They fall.

Jesus doesn’t fall. He rises. I put my whole trust in Him not in the Church necessarily.

The Church was established by Christ, therefore trusting in the Church is Trusting in Christ… I hope that’s what you meant

But since He says the above in the Gospel of Matthew I trust Him to be correct. I do not need to read the Catholic forefathers to believe that the Church is the Church. Just Jesus.

Well see the reason why we must look to the Fathers in cases against the Eastern Orthodox is because they seem to disagree as to what Jesus is suggesting in Mat 16. So, the next best thing is to understand what they early Fathers (those who followed immediately after Christ and a few hundred years later) thought about the Bishop of Rome since they were the first to partake in what Jesus established.

The OP is stating he is confused as to whether EO is more true or not. He is looking to the founding folks to support his cause that there is essentially no primacy in Rome, and it isn’t necessarily seen in the writings of the forefathers. I am just suggesting that we don’t need to go to the founders, because the Original founder is Jesus.

Yes I understand what the OP is struggling with I just suggest that we give him quotes from the Fathers that point towards the Pope in Rome.

 

[pablope]

I read the some writings of some of the Church fathers and became convinced that the bishop of Rome was never thought as equal among bishops, this was an Orthodox invention. I guess i made too many conclusions too fast.

If you want to read a historical look at Rome and the Byzantium…here is a link:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

Instead of repeating all the known arguments pro and contra, let us try the historical method and examine the position which the Byzantine Church took on this problem from earliest times on up to the period when the estrangement between the Eastern and Western parts of mediaeval Christianity became apparent and began to envenom the atmosphere in which the Churches had to live.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

As one who was baptized Catholic (Eastern), became Orthodox and then returned to the Catholic Church I found the above article not only fascinating but right on the money! Thanks for posting it!!

In Christ,
MinM

You’re quite welcome.