Orthodoxy and Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter searn77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

searn77

Guest
I am not either Orthodox or Catholic but I want to join one of them. I have been reading a lot about them and am not sure what one to join.To be honest I think I am leaning more towards Catholicism. Can someone tell me the differences between the two and why the Catholic way is right? Much appreciated
 
As a Catholic, I can see the merit in both sides. I actually struggled with this issue a while back. To me it came down to a few points.

First, I accept the teaching of the primacy of Rome. I see it in the Bible and it is logical to me.

Second, while I totally understand the development of doctrine issue that the EO have with Rome, and to an extent I agree, I do not see any logical reason why 1000 A.D., or any other point, should be the cut-off. Either we can understand and define doctrine as the need arises or we never could. To say that anything after a certain council is invalid does not make sense to me.

Third, so many of the Orthodox Churches have strong ethnic ties that I am not a part of. I would not feel at home in a Greek Orthodox or Russian Church as I am not culturally either one. I feel an exclusion in that set-up.

Finally, the Filioque issue to me is not that big of a deal.
 
ralphinal said:
First, I accept the teaching of the primacy of Rome. I see it in the Bible and it is logical to me.
Click to expand...
The infallibility and supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is usually the key factor. Ralpinal accepts this dogma and I do not. Raphinal is Catholic and I am Orthodox. I do not see the “infallible supremacy” in the early Church.

I see this doctrine as an innovation.
 
ralphinal said:
As a Catholic, I can see the merit in both sides. I actually struggled with this issue a while back. To me it came down to a few points.

First, I accept the teaching of the primacy of Rome. I see it in the Bible and it is logical to me.

Second, while I totally understand the development of doctrine issue that the EO have with Rome, and to an extent I agree, I do not see any logical reason why 1000 A.D., or any other point, should be the cut-off. Either we can understand and define doctrine as the need arises or we never could. To say that anything after a certain council is invalid does not make sense to me.

Third, so many of the Orthodox Churches have strong ethnic ties that I am not a part of. I would not feel at home in a Greek Orthodox or Russian Church as I am not culturally either one. I feel an exclusion in that set-up.

Finally, the Filioque issue to me is not that big of a deal.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean ,i felt that way when i went to a mexican [spanish ]catholic church as a observer…and all the other catholic ethnic churches,croatian,german,italian ect. ect.,so what to do what to do…🤷 😃
 
rad said:
I know what you mean ,i felt that way when i went to a mexican [spanish ]catholic church as a observer…and all the other catholic ethnic churches,croatian,german,italian,so what to do what to do…🤷 😃
Click to expand...
Find a non-Ethnic Church, one that is not based in an ethnic area.

Where in the country are you?
 
Mickey said:
The infallibility and supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is usually the key factor. Ralpinal accepts this dogma and I do not. Raphinal is Catholic and I am Orthodox. I do not see the “infallible supremacy” in the early Church.

I see this doctrine as an innovation.
Click to expand...
And I do not see it as an innovation, though I do acknowledge that there have been doctrinal developments through time.
 
searn77 said:
I am not either Orthodox or Catholic but I want to join one of them. I have been reading a lot about them and am not sure what one to join.To be honest I think I am leaning more towards Catholicism. Can someone tell me the differences between the two and why the Catholic way is right? Much appreciated
Click to expand...
searn, you should find this recent article in This Rock magazine of interest:

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0810fea3.asp

And here’s an article on the Filioque controversy:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a52.htm
 
ralphinal said:
And I do not see it as an innovation, though I do acknowledge that there have been doctrinal developments through time.
Click to expand...
After studying the resistance to papal infallibility/supremacy in the Roman Catholic councils of Basle and Constance—and then seeing it pushed through by Pius IX in 1870—I am convinced that it is innovation. 🤷
 
I am Roman Catholic and I am happy to remain in the tradition that Jesus Himself fulfilled: that is the tradition with the keys of authority.
As King David had his prime minister who ruled over the kingdom during the king’s absence, so too is the Pope Christ’s Vicar on earth.

😃

pace e bene
👍
 
Mickey said:
After studying the resistance to papal infallibility/supremacy in the Roman Catholic councils of Basle and Constance—and then seeing it pushed through by Pius IX in 1870—I am convinced that it is innovation. 🤷
Click to expand...
Back up a step or two. How about the primacy of Rome, not Infallibility or supremacy.
 
Mickey said:
Christ is the head of the Holy Orthodox Church
Click to expand...
And the earthly Davidic Kingdom too was under God’s rule. But it too had an earthly head: King David. The reason why Jesus, the true King, had to be of the line of David.
 
Shlomey said:
I am Roman Catholic and I am happy to remain in the tradition that Jesus Himself fulfilled: that is the tradition with the keys of authority.
As King David had his prime minister who ruled over the kingdom during the king’s absence, so too is the Pope Christ’s Vicar on earth.

😃

pace e bene
👍
Click to expand...
Didn’t christ say ill never leave or forsake you…plus he said when he ascends to his Father and our Father ,the Father will send the Holy Spirit to to teach lead and guide the church in all things…i don’t remember the lord saying he was leaving St.Peter,or the pope as supreme shepherds…i rather have God The Holy Spirit leading the church and the shepherds… in this…🤷 😉
 
rad said:
Didn’t christ say ill never leave or forsake you…plus he said when he ascends to his Father and our Father ,the Father will send the Holy Spirit to to teach lead and guide the church in all things…i don’t remember the lord saying he was leaving St.Peter,or the pope as supreme shepherds…i rather have God The Holy Spirit leading the church and the shepherds… in this…🤷 😉
Click to expand...
Mk 14:7 For the poor you have always with you: and whensoever you will, you may do them good:** but me you have not always**

😉
 
Mickey said:
Do you believe that a primacy of honor is equivalent to supremacy and infallibility?
Click to expand...
Here is how I see it, and I am not specifically discussing infallibility, as that is another issue in my mind.

Either Peter had primacy or he did not. If he did, then is it logical that apostles after him also have one who has primacy over the rest? If so, what does that primacy intail?

Now, my answer to the first question is "Yes. Peter did have Primacy over the 12. It was not just an honorary thing, from my reading of Scriptures.’

The second question would be asnwered “Yes, if Chirst set the Church up in that manner, it makes sense that the Bishops, who are the holders of Apostolic postions, would also have one with Primacy over the others.”

The third question, in my mind, is answered thusly “This primacy is represented as one Bishop having authority over others in matter of the day-to-day opporations of the CHurch. I can also accept one as overseeing the teaching of Doctrine and, when needed, calling Councils.”

You can call it suprimacy if you want, though I see the two as being different. Infallability is another issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top