Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[Mickey]

Like you’ll ‘sometimes’ hear that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the first Protestant Church.

Never heard that one.

 

[Peter_J]

Papal infallibility?

Yes.

I realize that “It was always a doctrine” is kind of a loaded statement (I’m not trying to rewrite history), so let me add that I believe that everything that is implicitly contained in the Deposit of Faith, is (technically) doctrine.

 

[Peter_J]

Never heard that one.

Then you’re probably spending too much time off the internet.

 

[East_and_West]

Christ is the head of the Holy Orthodox Church

Actually Mickey, that is not accurate. Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church is not the Church he founded; thus the EO church is lead by men.

 

[VARC]

Not infinite, I hope.

Well I don’t know about that, but I think it’s clear that there were differences of opinion, even in the early Church, about the extent of the Bishop of Rome’s authority. Indeed, opinions varied even from one Pope to the next, and from one Patriarch of Constantinople to the next.

So a key question should be, is it still posible to have differences of opinion among united Christians?

I think for most Christians the answer is yes. Most Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Old Catholics, etc would probably accept Roman Catholics if they held their papal beliefs as opinions. But Rome will have none of it. If one disagrees with Rome’s stance on most issues than one is a heretic.

 

[Mickey]

thus the EO church is lead by men.

Insults do not further your cause. It is a fact that Rome has delegated the Pope to be “Vicar of Christ”.

 

[Mickey]

Yes.

I realize that “It was always a doctrine” is kind of a loaded statement (I’m not trying to rewrite history), so let me add that I believe that everything that is implicitly contained in the Deposit of Faith, is (technically) doctrine.

So then you believe that Papal infallibility was always contained in the Deposit of Faith.

Okay.

 

[Mickey]

Then you’re probably spending too much time off the internet.

Perhaps.

 

[StMarina303ad]

You’ll ‘sometimes’ hear a lot of things. Like you’ll ‘sometimes’ hear that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the first Protestant Church.

Never heard that, but I’ve heard plenty of times that in reverse.
Catholics are the first Protestants.
Rome protested against Orthodoxy and left communion with all the Orthodox Churches, so it’s only natural that within a few centuries, they had people with in the Catholic Church which Protested against them and started their own Churches and then people in those Churches Protested against them and started their own Churches, etc., etc.
Meanwhile, Orthodoxy has remained Orthodox, we’ve not had any Protestors who’ve gone off to start their own Churches. This Protestant phenomona began with Rome.
All Protestants are children of the Catholic Church. They even maintain the wrong Church Calendar like the Catholics do celebrating Easter (Pascha) at the wrong time most years. The Holy Spirit through the consistant miracle of Holy Fire confirms that the Orthodox celebrate Pascha (Easter) on the correct date: youtube.com/watch?v=ys8hNr7BZ70 youtube.com/watch?v=h7rR2N0Jano&feature=related goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7050

 

[ralphinal]

Does Scripture and Tradition say that these three Apostles were “higher” than the others?

Were they treated differently by JEsus? Yes.

Were they treated differently by others? Yes.

Tell me this, why are the Patriarchs of some cities more important than others?

 

[Mickey]

Were they treated differently by JEsus? Yes.

Were they treated differently by others? Yes.

You are not answering my question.

 

[Peter_J]

Outside of this forum the question would be: “which Catholic way is right?”

Essentially both traditions are Catholic.

Personally, I try to use the term “Roman Catholic Church” rather than “Catholic Church” in any situation where there might be confusion. (As I’ve said before, I believe that I belong to the one true church; but if someone asked me my religion, I wouldn’t respond with “I belong to the one true church”.) But in practice, the vast majority of the time if I just say “Catholic Church”, people know that I mean the RCC, i.e. all those who are in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI (notwithstanding the fact that you Orthodox consider yourselves to be “the Catholic Church”).

The Latin Church, and the particular churches under the Papacy has continued to change more over the centuries, especially theologically.

It seems to be a point of pride that they should have done so. The Protestant churches have continued this practice at a more accelerated rate.

The issue of Papal Primacy is quite simple really. It has developed in the west into something the early church would not recognize.

If you want to see how Papal Primacy was exercised 1000 years ago, just look at the Orthodox Catholics. When Rome broke with the eastern churches the Primacy fell to Constantinople by default, and the Patriarch of Constantinople exercises that Primacy pretty much just as the early Popes had. It has not evolved in any significant way for two significant reasons:

• …because the Orthodox are by nature very conservative, and reluctant to introduce new ways of operating which has not been given to them by predecessors.
• …because the local synodal tradition continues to be as strong in the east as it was over the entire church at one time. This functions as an effective counterbalance to pretensions of power and pride which may rise in one localized faction or another. The “default setting” for the church is “that which has been done before”.
  The church does not look outside itself for a model of how to function or what to believe. It is it’s own model, it follows it’s own pattern.

Michael

I agree that the Patriarchs of Constantinople have done an admirable job as “first among equals”. But the thing is that I don’t believe that Rome went into schism, so I don’t believe that “the Primacy fell to Constantinople by default” (except in a strictly practical sense).

 

[ralphinal]

You are not answering my question.

Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36: Only Peter, James and John were witnesses to the Transfiguration. Jesus chose those three and those three alone.

Mark 14:32-43 Jesus takes those three farther into the garden, apart from the others. He also only questions Peter why he was asleep and not the other two.

Paul talks about meeting with them

When James was killed in Jerusalem, it was a major scandle.

Now, the fact that peter did all the talking seems lost on you. He was also the one who Judged Annias and Saphora when they cheated the Church.

 

[Mickey]

But the thing is that I don’t believe that Rome went into schism

Then perhaps this is where you need to further your studies.

 

[Mickey]

Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36: Only Peter, James and John were witnesses to the Transfiguration. Jesus chose those three and those three alone.

This does not say they were “higher” than the others.

Mark 14:32-43 Jesus takes those three farther into the garden, apart from the others. He also only questions Peter why he was asleep and not the other two.

This does not indicate that anyone was “higher” than the others.

Paul talks about meeting with them

This does not answer the question.

When James was killed in Jerusalem, it was a major scandle.

This does not answer the question.

Now, the fact that peter did all the talking seems lost on you. .

I already told you that he was oftentimes a spokesman, but you will not answer my question.

He was also the one who Judged Annias and Saphora when they cheated the Church.

If you are unable to answer–just say so.

 

[ralphinal]

This does not say they were “higher” than the others.
This does not indicate that anyone was “higher” than the others.
This does not answer the question.
This does not answer the question.

I already told you that he was oftentimes a spokesman, but you will not answer my question.
If you are unable to answer–just say so.

I guess I do not understand the question.

These three were treated differently by Jesus. Does that mean they were better? Not in and of itself, but God does not do things without reason.

Peter was the spokesman for the twelve. Does that mean anything to you.? If they were all equals, why did Pete do the talking? WHy when it was just Peter and John did Peter talk?

DO you want Jesus to say “Peter, you are in charge, you are Pope?” He didn’t. Just like he never said “I am the Second Person of the Trinity.”

 

[pr_catholic]

Mickey, if your so sure about your stance on the bishop of rome(Peter)'s authority over the church, then why does the risen jesus takes him apart and him alone in the last chapter of the gospel of john and tells him to tend to my sheep?

Or even better, if I’m not mistaken it was in the gospel of luke where jesus tells peter that satan asked permition to temp the apostles but jesus asked especifically for him not to fall in temptation so that he could in turn strenghten this brethren’s(the other apostles) faith?

 

[PJM]

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

Reply

Both have “Apolostic succession”, which means that they can historically trace there roots back to the Orginal 12 (including St. Paul) Apostles.

There was a rejection of the authority of Rome about a 1,000 years after the death of Christ by the Orthodox community, that resulted in a split within the Church.

As a life long RCC, I cannot say that one is “better than the other.” Both use the same bible and practice all of the same Sacraments.

However Jesus Clearly (Mt. 16:13-19) only desired ONE Church (thus we now debate, what “one” means.) And it is quite clear that Papal Primacy is what Jesus Himself had in mind.

The major differences that “in total” the RCC is often (but not always) less ethnic in the congregation and practice of the faith.

No doubt one can get to heaven faithfully practcing either, but to me, the issue of what Jesus wanted takes precedence over why there was a split to began with.

Pray and study and then pray somemore

God bless, and welcome home!

PJM m.c

 

[Mickey]

then why does the risen jesus takes him apart and him alone in the last chapter of the gospel of john and tells him to tend to my sheep?

Jesus Christ asks St Peter three times if he loves Him. There is a triple affirmation here to make amends for St Peter’s triple denial.

but jesus asked especifically for him not to fall in temptation

St Peter was about to deny Him three times. Jesus Christ new that St Peter would repent and weep bitterly over this denial and be an example of repentance for the other Apostles.

There is nothing in your two Scriptural examples that points to a supreme infallible pontiff of Rome.

 

[Mickey]

There was a rejection of the authority of Rome about a 1,000 years after the death of Christ by the Orthodox community, that resulted in a split within the Church.

Rome split from Holy Orthodoxy.

PJM:
The major differences that “in total” the RCC is often (but not always) less ethnic in the congregation and practice of the faith.Then you are not very familiar with the Eastern Catholic Churches.