family member converting to Greek Orthodox

[Jacob50]

Thanks mate! I read you papal primacy quotes. I bet you can update them and add some 200 more

I’m actually at 320 right now. But I’m not like looking for more right now. I plan to get to 500 though. These will include any quote before 1000 A.D. because the split is usually dated 1054. PM me if your interested in the update.

St Peter was an apostle…not a pope.

Both. Just as the other apostles were Bishops.

Yet even the Rock betrayed Christ.
The great man that he was, he repented, but he was moved.

Peter began his function as Prime minister/Royal steward after Christ’s Ascension. His and the other apostles’ role become evident from that start point (which is after his denial). Before Christ’s ascension Peter is re instituted so to speak (from his denials) and made Shepherd of the entire flock.

Further, being Rock does not mean a Pope cannot deny Christ. If the Pope today denied him, that wouldn’t by that very fact make the entire Church go into apostasy because the teachings (which the Church holds) are Satan’s target to deform. If we had a bad Pope today, that wouldn’t mean the Rock failed. If a Pope or the entire Church’s Magisterium officially teach error, then the Rock would have fallen. The “Gates of Hell” described in Matt 16:18 are referring to heretical teachings. Thus the Church must prevail against them. If heretical teachings prevail, then we can say that what Christ built over the Rock which is his Church, fell in apostasy.

Moreover, Christ did this to demonstrate that he builds over the most weakest man of all, so that through weakness, God’s strength would be shown. Just as a weak kid like David was no match for a tall man like Goliath in our human eyes, so too Peter is made rock despite the fact he showed weak faith and denied the Lord. The fact that Peter denied Christ does not take away the fact that he is made Rock and Chief of all the apostles.

Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (Cyril, Catech ii. n. 15 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363))

• St. Cyril of Jerusalem

“Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty …even denying the Lord.” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387))

-St. John Chrysostom

 

[Mickey]

Both.

There is no evidence that St Peter was the first Pope.

“Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty …even denying the Lord.” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387))

-St. John Chrysostom

Yes indeed. St Peter was a great apostle. That is never in dispute. Quote mining is usually a futile exercise. It can go on for eternity.

“He speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His Church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…”[St. John Chrysostom, *Homily 82.3 on St. Matthew]

This thread is not meant to debate about the great apostle St Peter…or the Pope of Rome. There is a thread over in Eastern Catholicism if you would like to do that.

 

[Mickey]

As a matter of historical fact, the first bishop in the church to be addressed by the title “Pope” was St. Heraclas, the 13th archbishop in the See of St. Mark in Alexandria (in a letter from the Bishop of Rome, interestingly). This was in the mid-3rd century, some three centuries before Roman archbishops would start using the title.

It stands to reason, then, that any reading of a Pope or the Papacy as an office into scripture is at best anachronistic.

Indeed.

 

[lax16]

I am not sure if this is the right place for this post.

My sister (a Roman Catholic) married a Methodist in a Catholic ceremony. He recently told me that he is converting to being Greek Orthodox because that is the church from the beginning and that the Roman church is the one that split off.

Not knowing much about the Greek Orthodox church I told him I would research more and get back to him so we could have a discussion. How do I respond to the idea that the Greek Orthodox church is the true church and Roman Catholic church is not?

Also what are some the main differences between Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

Any info would be appreciated.

Hi sunny - Is your brother-in-law of Greek ancestry?

 

[Jacob50]

There is no evidence that St Peter was the first Pope.
Yes indeed. St Peter was a great apostle. That is never in dispute. Quote mining is usually a futile exercise. It can go on for eternity.

“He speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His Church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…”[St. John Chrysostom, *Homily 82.3 on St. Matthew

]

This thread is not meant to debate about the great apostle St Peter…or the Pope of Rome. There is a thread over in Eastern Catholicism if you would like to do that.

Well if your going to question whether Peter was the first Pope or not, then you shouldn’t believe in the Assumption of Mary. There is more so called “evidence” which you call, of Peter being the first Pope (in Scripture and Tradition) than Mary being Assumed into Heaven. Yet you believe in the Assumption (if you are truly Orthodox) but not Peter being the first Pope. With “Pope” of course, I don’t mean the word itself and how it was later invented. With “Pope” I mean his role as such, which is to Shepherd Christ’s entire flock. And his role as Pope is more found in Scripture and Tradition than the Assumption of Mary.

Would you dispute that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church was founded in Matt 16:18? Would you dispute that Christ entrusts Peter his entire flock in John 21:17-19? Would you dispute that Peter is the Head of Christendom?

If you dispute any of these questions above, I’ll be sure to make one or two threads related to this, and I’ll invite you to comment on it If you don’t, then there is no need for another thread.

 

[Mickey]

you shouldn’t believe in the Assumption of Mary.

We call it the Dormition.

Tradition is clear about the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos…but not St Peter’s papacy.

Would you dispute that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church was founded

Again. There is a thread for that in Eastern Catholicism. Don’t hijack this one.

If you dispute any of these questions above

I have addressed those issues many times. You can start a thread if you like.

 

[Jacob50]

We call it the Dormition.

Tradition is clear about the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos…but not St Peter’s papacy.
Again. There is a thread for that in Eastern Catholicism. Don’t hijack this one.
I have addressed those issues many times. You can start a thread if you like.

Yes her Dormition (everything concerning Mary’s death and how she then was Assumed). Tradition is indeed clear about it. But, not as Papacy. The earliest accounts aren’t that early and are not many. I am not saying that I don’t believe or reject it. I do. But even if there is some lack writings found very early on, we still believe it. Papacy however does have a pretty good case even in the early centuries, and you don’t believe in it (as we Catholics do).

You didn’t answer the questions above. So there is no need for another thread.

 

[Mickey]

You didn’t answer the questions above.

I have answered them many times…you are hijacking.

So there is no need for another thread.

Good enough.

 

[Mickey]

Papacy however does have a pretty good case even in the early centuries.

The papacy…yes. St Peter as the first pope…no.

You didn’t answer the questions above.

I have answered them many times…you are hijacking.

So there is no need for another thread.

Good enough.

 

[truthseeker32]

Now this is a very interesting question, one I’ve never heard.

…An interesting corollary - what sort of evidence would convince Roman Catholics that the papacy claims are false? That, though, is for a different forum.

When I was discerning between whether I should Convert to the EOC or RCC these are the very types of questions I considered.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Would you dispute that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church was founded in Matt 16:18?

Yes. The quote from St. John Chrysostom which Mickey quoted above shows that the early Church’s understanding of Matt 16:18 was that the rock was St. Peter’s confession.This is consistent with the early Church and the other scriptures- like in the book of Revelation which describes that all of the Apostles (through their confession) are the foundation of the Church and Jesus is the corner stone. Do you dispute that Jesus is the Rock?

Jacob50:

Would you dispute that Christ entrusts Peter his entire flock in John 21:17-19?

Yes. All Bishops are shepherds of their laity/sheep and in that passage of the Gospel of St. John Jesus reinstated St. Peter who had fallen from his status as one of His shepherds through his denial of Christ Jesus 3 times. Many recongize the symbolism of Jesus asking St. Peter 3 times if he loved Him as a why Jesus reconciled with St. Peter after his 3 separate denials. When I read the passage, I don’t see an elevation of St. Peter above the other Apostles, but I do see that he was raised back to their status as shepherds. I see this is consistent with the interpretation of the ancient Church. Do you dispute that Jesus is the Shepherd of His flock?

Jacob50:

Would you dispute that Peter is the Head of Christendom?

Yes. Orthodox Christians recognize Jesus Christ as the only Head of His Church, the Body as the New Testament confirms. St. Peter, may his soul rest in peace, was one of the 12 Apostles and was the co-founder of the Church in the city of Rome. He certainly is a Saint & a Martyr and now intercedes for those who pray to him. Do you dispute that Jesus is the Head of the Christendom?

 

[sunny422]

Catholics and Orthodox have much in common. I’ve seen many people here say we share 99% of the same teachings. Whether that number is accurate or not (because I don’t measure such) it is true that we do share a lot of these. We both believe in things like Apostolic Succession, Praying to Saints (Mary included), we believe in the Eucharist and the rest of the sacraments, Holy Trinity, Liturgy etc.

Among the things that are in dispute, perhaps the most important one is our understanding of Papal Primacy. The Filioque is also an issue. Some Orthodox have problem with purgatory some don’t. I guess that sort of depends on what Orthodox you are debating. They do believe that we ought to pray for our departed ones. But they kinda don’t have defined where do people go to in order to purify their sins, or what exactly happens here. There is somewhat flexibility among them in this topic. Again I cannot speak for all Orthodox, I’ll let them clarify this to you here. But if you want to read a little more in detail, go here:

catholic.com/tracts/eastern-orthodoxy
catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter-and-the-eastern-orthodox
catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn%E2%80%99t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy

You have your friend here asking you which is the True Church. I will give you my opinion regarding this (and I do not intend to have some sort of debate with anyone here). The reason why I’m Catholic and not Orthodox, is precisely because in early Christianity, Rome was the Head of Christendom. To me this played a key role in deciding to be either Catholic or Orthodox. To me it wasn’t a matter of who excommunicated who or who did this or that. To me the matter was “Who has authority?”. And I found the Pope’s role as the leader of the entire universal Church very important for the entire Church. And I found this instituted by God himself. For this reason, I am Catholic. I hop my opinion helps you. Please read the articles I provided to you, hopefully those will help you.

Thank you the articles were very helpful and cleared up some of the differences.

 

[sunny422]

Hi sunny - Is your brother-in-law of Greek ancestry?

No my brother-in-law is not of Greek ancestry…and it sounds like this could be a difficulty since from the readings that the liturgy is in Greek in the Greek Orthodox Church (correct me if I am wrong).

 

[sunny422]

There is a short article at the link below, written from an orthodox perspective, that very briefly lists many of the differences between the two faiths.
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

I am not so sure about citing this as a reliable source for differences between Orthodox and Catholicism.

It states:

1. “The Orthodox faithful receive both the “body” and “blood of Christ” in Holy Communion; Roman Catholics receive only the “bread,” a wafer.”

Do the Orthodox believe that we only receive a wafer and not the Body and Blood of Christ
and only they have a valid Eucharist?

1. “Roman Catholic theology is customarily legalistic and philosophical. For example, a “valid” (legal term) baptism into Christ is the result of the right intention (having the same understanding of baptism as the Church) and using the correct formula or words during the ceremony or rite. Thus, even an atheist, under certain conditions, could baptize a person. “Sprinkling” of water (effusion) over the head of the baptized is reasonable and sufficient.”

This I am pretty sure is incorrect. This charge that Catholicism is legalistic is one often given by Protestants (again correct me if I am wrong).

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut though

 

[sunny422]

If my brother-in-law becomes Greek Orthodox can he take communion at a Catholic church?

 

[Mickey]

If my brother-in-law becomes Greek Orthodox can he take communion at a Catholic church?

No.

 

[bitznbitez]

If my brother-in-law becomes Greek Orthodox can he take communion at a Catholic church?

One suggestion would be to look into Eastern Rite Catholics, if there are any such parishes near him. Since its the same liturgy etc. yet is in communion with Rome.

He may or may not be open to that but it sure would go a long way toward unity in the home.

 

[sunny422]

One suggestion would be to look into Eastern Rite Catholics, if there are any such parishes near him. Since its the same liturgy etc. yet is in communion with Rome.

He may or may not be open to that but it sure would go a long way toward unity in the home.

Thank you for the suggestion. I’ll try and see what he thinks about it. Although, I am not so sure about his desire to be in communion with Rome. He states that the Catholic Church split off from the Orthodox.

In addition I think some of the appeal of being Orthodox is the rejection of the papacy. I also think that being able to get divorced in the cases of adultery may seem attractive. He also says Catholicism is legalistic and “that is a fact.”

I am not too concerned about him being Orthodox as much as he might be trying to convert my sister into being Orthodox. I found a Orthodox saint card in her car.

I would appreciate prayer for this …

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t want to seem too dismissive of your concerns, Sunny422, but it is worth remembering that there are a great many Orthodox saints who are also venerated in the Roman Catholic Church, and hence would be considered Roman Catholic saints too. So the presence of a picture of an Orthodox saint in your sister’s car or anywhere else isn’t necessarily a sign of anything. My old Father of Confession from my RC days had Byzantine images in his office and displayed a great devotion to St. Ephrem the Syrian while all the time being thoroughly Latin (he was Dominican) and committed in his Catholicism.

 

[sunny422]

Thanks for the reminder that we share some similar saints. I could be wrong but when I saw the saint card in her car. I said “oh I don’t know him.” She said “Oh…he’s Orthodox” As to explaining why I didn’t know the saint. I don’t remember the name…