Help - Why stay Catholic vs. moving to Eastern Orthodoxy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BusterMartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve-b said:
Schism is a serious sin. The consequences are disastrous on one’s soul. From St Paul
Click to expand...
As far as I’m concerned, the Catholic and Orthodox churches are in schism with each other. Yes, it’s a sin, but the western understanding of sin being more like the breaking of a law versus the Eastern understanding of it being an illness, greatly changes our perspective on our attitude toward schism.

At this point, I consider loyalty to the schism sinful. Now, perhaps it is true that the Catholic Church is less loyal to the schism than the Orthodox Church.
 
I also perceive that there is less urgency toward reunification in Orthodoxy than in Catholicism.

Sadly :cry:
 
Who/what organ in Orthodoxy can officially determine when the Roman Church no longer legitimately possesses the primacy?

After all, you maintain that the Petrine primacy has not become defunct, but has transferred to Constantinople — in the Orthodox view.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Who/what organ in Orthodoxy can officially determine when the Roman Church no longer legitimately possesses the primacy?
Click to expand...
Same process. The bishop/patriarch decide for their church. Recognition of communion is withheld until the offender returns to orthodoxy (lower case “o”).
 
Vonsalza said:
40.png
steve-b:
I have to ask, Do you think that post is convincing? Try giving references properly referenced.
Click to expand...
Oh, like this one you used in the other thread?

What’s “Love Definition”?
Click to expand...
I gave this link It goes straight to the article
 
Catholicwife32 said:
40.png
steve-b:
Schism is a serious sin. The consequences are disastrous on one’s soul. From St Paul
Click to expand...
As far as I’m concerned, the Catholic and Orthodox churches are in schism with each other. Yes, it’s a sin, but the western understanding of sin being more like the breaking of a law versus the Eastern understanding of it being an illness, greatly changes our perspective on our attitude toward schism.
Click to expand...
Breaking from Peter is what is involved in this schism. Rome is the chair of Peter. Those in the East and elsewhere in the world, who ARE united, and remain united to Peter and those in union with Peter are Catholics.
40.png
Catholicwife32:
At this point, I consider loyalty to the schism sinful. Now, perhaps it is true that the Catholic Church is less loyal to the schism than the Orthodox Church.
Click to expand...
Let’s not redefine or reinvent what’s going on.
 
Last edited:
I mean that Catholicism can be divided among traditionalists, orthodox with a small O, and progressives. These groups all practice their own version of Catholicism. I used to believe that orthodox Catholics were the ones who were simply loyal to the teachings of the Catholic Church and trusted that the gates of Hell would not prevail. But the response to Pope Francis has turned this whole idea on it’s head. Catholics are NOT communion with each other. We’re like a separated married couple who simply hasn’t filed for divorce.
 
Wow - hadn’t heard it put quite like that…though I’m not sure I entirely disagree.
 
I just read through this. Really good stuff…I was able to take away a few key notes from it. Thanks so much for sharing!
 
steve-b said:
Breaking from Peter is what is involved in this schism.
Click to expand...
We’re in schism OVER the role of the Pope. This simply means that both churches have a rightful claim to their hierarchy having apostolic succession. However, the East and West split over disagreements with the role of the Pope and declared the other side heretical. The Protestant split isn’t considered a schism because the split wasn’t hierarchical. These divisions in Christianity are a wound. I agree with the book I’m currently reading on Orthodoxy that any healing to these wounds involve all Christians embracing the humility to learn from each other, rather than act pompous like only outsiders need to realize we’re right. I also agree this humility needs to come from a pursuit of the Truth rather than merely tossing aside our disagreements as non-essential to Christianity.
 
I wanted to say thank you to all who replied to this thread. This is a very important topic for me, especially right now. If anyone has any other thoughts/articles they’d like to share, I would appreciate it. If not, I won’t bump this thread again and will let it close. I just wanted to give one last hurrah to this thread in case there were other thoughts. I’m really looking into the EOC, and what I find out about the historicity of papal primacy in the form of supremacy could be a contributing factor.
 
Early supremacy is flimsy at best.

Take Leo I’s objection to naming Constantinople as a secondary seat of honor in Chalcedon.
Most Catholics mention that simple fact as evidence of supremacy and leave it at that.

But if you actually bother to look at the text, his objection was in deference to the sees in Alexandria and Antioch, not because of his supposed supremacy.

Seriously. Read it.
 
Last edited:
I apologize for asking this - but I’ve been looking for this and can’t find the details on it. Can you point me in the right direction if it’s not too much trouble please?
 
Leo’s letter to Marcian. Section three.

“The city of Constantinople, royal though it be, can never be raised to apostolic rank”.

The other notable apostolic sees of the day were Aelxandria and Antioch.
 
There was no difference in belief between the OO and the OE, only a miscommunication between the Patraite
 
paul.ibra said:
There was no difference in belief between the OO and the OE, only a miscommunication between the Patraite
Click to expand...
If they are in communion with each other, i dont know if they are, then i would agree. If they are not then i do not agree. There is much confusion on this fourm as to which Orthodox are in communion with each other and to me this is the outward sign of differences in communions.

Peace!!!
 
unforunately they are not in communion as the OO did not attend the Chalcedonian councils due to the misunderstanding that

miaphysite(OO) (Unity of Divinity and Humanity of Our Lord Jesus Christ) was not the same as Diaphysite (2 Natures).

Although this issue was later fixed by Pope Shenouna the Third, the OO church missed the ecumenical concils held due to the misunderstanding, so communion still has some obstacles.

May Our Lord grant us unity of faith to gather as one church.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top