Orthodoxy vs Catholisism

[excaliber]

Pure gold fears no fire.I Peter 3:15 .

We, like the Vatican, accept Chalcedon fully (well, almost: it has a problem with canon 28. But it accepted it at their Lateran IV, and the Copts agree with us on our interpretation of it). The Copts don’t accept it fully, yet.

How can God lead Christians by councils, If these Christians are able to pick and chose what part of a council they will accept?

Even if you took Rome out of the picture…you still have to figure out which Orthodox church to join.
Why?
They apparently pick and chose what councils to believe in.
Or interpret councils differently.

If The office of the Pope of Rome is not from God…Why is it that it seems to work better?
Man canot out think God.

The Catholic Church is larger then the Orthodox and yet its ONE Holy and Apostolic. You eather follow the teachings of the Pope or not.
But those who don’t canot keep the title Roman Catholic.They would be outside the church.

Orthodox could be devided…but all still be Orthodox.

How can a fallen church make more deciples then all Orthodox combined?

There is a Catholic church almost on every corner.
Why can’t the Orthodox do this in America? Its easy to spread teachings in America.

You mean to tell me that Orthodox and Rome split…Rome is not slowed down at all by the loss and progresses in understanding.

While the Orthodox are devided and left trying to figure out what part of the councils to exept…and to this day are still devided and trying to figure out what councils to exept.

It seems like Orthodox got stuck…but rome is moving full speed.
It seems like there is devision in Rome…However I believe Rome is slow to Excomunicate, So Roman Catholics may go against there own Church and not be punished for it.
So while the Church is not devided,people are given an inch and take a mile.

How can a fallen church, always come out on top?

 

[Peter_J]

How can God lead Christians by councils, If these Christians are able to pick and chose what part of a council they will accept?

According to wikipedia:

Canon 28 grants equal privileges (isa presbeia) to Constantinople as of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome as renewed by canon 36 of the Quinisext Council. The papal legates were not present for the vote on this canon, and protested it afterwards, and was not ratified by Pope Leo in Rome.

Acceptance by the Pope is one of the things that makes an ecumenical council an ecumenical council, so I don’t think the pejorative phrase “pick and choose” can really be applied to Rome’s actions.

(BTW, I’m not sure wiki is correct to use the word “equal”.)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Your as is grass (cf. I Peter 1:24)

clever, getting around the censor.

But I was speaking of the Word of Orthodoxy.

Not my grass.

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry, that should say “All flesh is grass. (cf. I Peter 1:24)”

I guess I was typing too fas.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

How can God lead Christians by councils, If these Christians are able to pick and chose what part of a council they will accept?

They’re not.
They do have free choice on choosing the Councils that uphold the Faith. Some Christians choose wrong.

Even if you took Rome out of the picture…you still have to figure out which Orthodox church to join.
Why?
They apparently pick and chose what councils to believe in.
Or interpret councils differently.

You can either choose the Eastern Orthodox who pick all the first Seven that the Vatican accepts,
or the Oriental Orthodox who have not accepted these Councils formally.
The Oriental Orthodox gives no support to prefer the Vatican over the Eastern Orthodox, and the Vatican gives no support to prefer the Oriental Orhtodox over the Eastern Orthodox.
Your pick.

If The office of the Pope of Rome is not from God…Why is it that it seems to work better?
Man canot out think God.

No he can’t, but what do you mean “better.”

Are you talking about unified? I’ll state that the Orthodox are more united at present on the Faith and Morals than the Vatican is. I taught in a “Catholic” university, I know of what I speak.

Even the Oriental Orthodox are more unified with the Eastern Orthodox than the Vatican’s Traditionalists and those claiming to be the “Spirit of Vatican II.” I not even speaking of the SSPX.

And then there’s the Protestants, ever drifting further from the Vatican. The Orthodox are drawing near to each other.

And before the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, there were episodes like the Great Western Schism, all of Western Europe fighting (literally) over who is the right pope for over a lifetime. And it wasn’t the only time.

The Catholic Church is larger then the Orthodox and yet its ONE Holy and Apostolic. You eather follow the teachings of the Pope or not.
But those who don’t canot keep the title Roman Catholic.They would be outside the church.

Orthodox could be devided…but all still be Orthodox.

Actually, no they can’t. The dyptichs governs that.

How can a fallen church make more deciples then all Orthodox combined?

Christ spoke of a wide gate and a little flock. so one has to watch making the numbers arguement.

There is a Catholic church almost on every corner.
Why can’t the Orthodox do this in America? Its easy to spread teachings in America.

As a side note (though he is more) the first Orthodox saint in America was St. Peter the Aleut, who was martyred by the Spanish Inquisition in California for refusing to renounce Holy Orthodoxy.
It is easy to spread the teachings of hedonism in America. Asceticism is a tougher sell.
As for every corner, the Vatican got a leg up of 300 years with the full support of the Spanish (and partly) French crowns and state.
The original band of Orthodox missionaries made the largest treck on a mission in the history of evangelization. Crossing from Finland across Siberia to Alaska, St. Herman alone remained. The others either died or were martyred-often at the hands of the civil authorities: many didn’t like treating the natives like human beings, and the missionaries placed themselves between the natives and this abuse.

You mean to tell me that Orthodox and Rome split…Rome is not slowed down at all by the loss and progresses in understanding.

While the Orthodox are devided and left trying to figure out what part of the councils to exept…and to this day are still devided and trying to figure out what councils to exept.

The Eastern Orthodox aren’t. As I indicated, the “canceling out” favors us for that reason. And the Oriental have accepted the teaching of the four (the ones the Vatican accepts with us), and moving towards formal recognition.

It seems like Orthodox got stuck…but rome is moving full speed.

To where? I admit that B XVI and JP II seem to have gotten them back on track.

It seems like there is devision in Rome…However I believe Rome is slow to Excomunicate, So Roman Catholics may go against there own Church and not be punished for it.
So while the Church is not devided,people are given an inch and take a mile.

I would agree.

How can a fallen church, always come out on top?

I’d answer, but I’d prefer what you mean: on top of what?

 

[Air_Force_1]

There is no theology quiz to get into heaven, God doesn’t keep a checklist on whether or not you recited the filioque.

Go to church, partake of the mysteries, pray and do the works of God. You’ll be just fine.

Yours in Christ
Joe

This has to be the best three sentences I have seen on this site

 

[Mickey]

You either follow the teachings of the Pope or not.
But those who don’t canot keep the title Roman Catholic.

Those who don’t, follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and they are called the Holy Orthodox Church.

How can a fallen church make more deciples then all Orthodox combined?

It is not a numbers game. The path is narrow. Many are called but few are chosen.

There is a Catholic church almost on every corner. Why can’t the Orthodox do this in America?

Give it time.

It seems like Orthodox got stuck

If you mean that Holy Orthodoxy adheres to the Tradition of the apostolic Church–the Church of the holy Fathers–then you are correct.

…but rome is moving full speed.?

If you mean that Rome has brought forth doctrinal innovations over time, then you are correct again.

How can a fallen church, always come out on top?

On top of what?

 

[Peter_J]

You either follow the teachings of the Pope or not.
But those who don’t canot keep the title Roman Catholic.

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I’m guessing that you didn’t really mean to say that. (Either that or there are a h*ck of a lot more Orthodox than I realized. )

 

[Mickey]

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I’m guessing that you didn’t really mean to say that.

It was tongue-in-cheek. Sorry.

However, there are some “teachings of the Pope” that the Holy Orthodox Church do not see as Scriptural–as I am sure that you are aware.

Papal supremacy/infallibility
IC
purgatory
Filioque
etc.

 

[Peter_J]

It was tongue-in-cheek. Sorry.

Ya’ have to be careful what you say on the internet. I’ve seen some of my fellow Catholic posters/bloggers say that Orthodox define themselves in terms of not being Catholic.

 

[Peter_J]

See also.

 

[excaliber]

in the Whole Catholic church, I see one MAJOR flaw. The catholic church NEEDS to tighten its belt!!!
The more slack in your belt, the more your pants are barely hanging on.

It seems like many parishioners are barely hanging on, and people get away with doing what ever they want.

But I will investigate more about the Orthodox. However I already have problems with disunity.
Contrary to the Catholic Church, it seems like the only thing the Orthodox need is The Pope. Someone to interpret councils, so each individual Orthodox Church isn’t picking and chosing portions of councils.
The Orthodox Church admits that
they are in error, Coptics-Oriental-Greek…and however many more there are canot all be correct. They canot all have the fullness of the Faith,and yet not be in agreement.

If the Catholic church was one before the Great schism. It was not like the Orthodox.

Without the Pope all Catholic churches would splinter off.
Pope equals unity, Jesus wanted us to be ONE.
No Pope equals Greek-Coptic-Oriental-Ethiopian-etc…etc…etc… having no sheapherd
to keep them together.
Is this not a direct result in not having a Pope.

The latin Church teaches more then the Orthodox, purgatory etc…etc… With a pope what is there to hold the Latin church back
from understanding in greater detail?

Without a Pope the Orthodox seem to be stuck in disagreement with eachother.How can God add more the Orthodox understanding of the faith, if they are devided in what they have.

Looking into Orthodoxy will probably only make me apreciate having a Pope. But I will look into it anyway.

 

[Peter_J]

The Orthodox Church admits that
they are in error

 

[Peter_J]

in the Whole Catholic church, I see one MAJOR flaw. The catholic church NEEDS to tighten its belt!!!
The more slack in your belt, the more your pants are barely hanging on.

It seems like many parishioners are barely hanging on, and people get away with doing what ever they want.

This ought to be considered together with what you said earlier:

How can a fallen church make more deciples then all Orthodox combined?

There is a Catholic church almost on every corner.
Why can’t the Orthodox do this in America? Its easy to spread teachings in America.

…

How can a fallen church, always come out on top?

In other words, the Catholic Church doesn’t have as “tight” of a “belt” as the Orthodox do, but I think that’s also a factor in the Catholic Church having more members.

This is not an easy question, and I’m not by any means suggesting that the Catholic answer is obviously better than the Orthodox answer. I simply wish to point out that if we (Catholics) were to become very much stricter, there would be a price to pay in terms of people falling away. (Incidentally, there are also certain areas in which the Catholic Church is actually stricter than the Orthodox Church, most notably in the area of clerical celibacy: Catholics and Orthodox both require bishops to be celibate, but in the Catholic Church most priests are celibate as well.)

P.S. Looking at your post again, I take it that you don’t feel the Orthodoxy’s “belt” is tight enough either. You could be right, but again the same logic would apply.

 

[excaliber]

Ok let me explain.
Again Coptic-Greek-Oriental etc…etc…etc… these are Orthodox
correct?

These Orthodox are in disagreement correct?

Some one is in error then.
And since the only churches mentiond are Orthodox, one if not several Orthodox churches must be in error. Otherwise there would be no disagreement.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

in the Whole Catholic church, I see one MAJOR flaw. The catholic church NEEDS to tighten its belt!!!
The more slack in your belt, the more your pants are barely hanging on.

It seems like many parishioners are barely hanging on, and people get away with doing what ever they want.

But I will investigate more about the Orthodox. However I already have problems with disunity.
Contrary to the Catholic Church, it seems like the only thing the Orthodox need is The Pope.

he’s the reason the split occured.

Someone to interpret councils, so each individual Orthodox Church isn’t picking and chosing portions of councils.
The Orthodox Church admits that
they are in error,

We have Seven Ecumenical Councisl (alll of which Rome accepts) so I don’t know what you mean by pick and choosing, or us admitting error, when we haven’t.

Coptics-Oriental-Greek…and however many more there are canot all be correct. They canot all have the fullness of the Faith,and yet not be in agreement.

According to the Vatican, the Coptic/Oriental Orthodox broke off from the the Vatican, not the Eastern Orthodox. Only if you admit that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, can you say that the Copts broke off from us (I prefer to say that they were estranged from us. But with some counseling, we’re getting back together and remarry).

If the Catholic church was one before the Great schism. It was not like the Orthodox.

To take this view, he have to say that the Oriental Orhtodox broke off from the Vatican, not that they were a split in Orthodoxy.

Without the Pope all Catholic churches would splinter off.
Pope equals unity, Jesus wanted us to be ONE.
No Pope equals Greek-Coptic-Oriental-Ethiopian-etc…etc…etc… having no sheapherd
to keep them together.
Is this not a direct result in not having a Pope.

The Coptic/Oriental/Ethiopian etc. Orthodox are in communion with each other and confess the same Faith.
The Greek etc. Orthodox are in communion with each other and confess the same Faith.
And the two recognize the same Faith in the other and have begun intercommunion.
All without a supreme pontiff to keep them together.
With the supreme pontiff the churches splintered off: SSPX, Old Catholic, Polish National Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Evangelical, Baptist,…
Is this not a direct result in having a pontiff?

The latin Church teaches more then the Orthodox, purgatory etc…etc… With a pope what is there to hold the Latin church back
from understanding in greater detail?

Like filioque?

Without a Pope the Orthodox seem to be stuck in disagreement with eachother.How can God add more the Orthodox understanding of the faith, if they are devided in what they have.

?

Looking into Orthodoxy will probably only make me apreciate having a Pope. But I will look into it anyway.

ask anytime.

 

[wynd]

Maybe I should clarify for excaliber:

The Eastern Orthodox churches are all in communion with each other. They were separated from the Church in the 5th century.

The Oriental Orthodox churches are all in communion with each other. They and the Church of Rome parted ways in the 11th century.

These two groups are not in communion with each other. But, they are very close.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Ok let me explain.
Again Coptic-Greek-Oriental etc…etc…etc… these are Orthodox
correct?

These Orthodox are in disagreement correct?

Some one is in error then.
And since the only churches mentiond are Orthodox, one if not several Orthodox churches must be in error. Otherwise there would be no disagreement.

Being Coptic Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Indian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox
or
Greek Orthodox, Arab Orthodox, Hebrew Orthodox (yes, they exist), Polish Orthodox (yes, they exist too), Russian Orthodox, Estonian Orthodox (the primate of the Russian Church is Estonian), Serbian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, etc.
are no more different from each other in their Church than the Italians, French, Spaniards, Poles, etc. under the Vatican.

 

[excaliber]

Maybe I should clarify for excaliber:

The Eastern Orthodox churches are all in communion with each other. They were separated from the Church in the 5th century.

The Oriental Orthodox churches are all in communion with each other. They and the Church of Rome parted ways in the 11th century.

These two groups are not in communion with each other. But, they are very close.

These two different groups both claim to be Orthodox…can they both be correct?

If Not.

Why are they both called Orthodox?

 

[Hesychios]

These two different groups both claim to be Orthodox…can they both be correct?

If Not.

Why are they both called Orthodox?

Everyone thinks they are orthodox, else they would change to be what they thought was orthodox. Orthodox essentially means correct.

So Roman Catholics think they are orthodox (in other words, correct), so do Arminians (like Methodists) and so do Calvinists. Everybody thinks they are right, so they think of themselves as orthodox. If they didn’t think they were right, they would change to what they thought was right.

Just so you know, the term “Oriental Orthodox” is really a convenient made up phrase the Vatican uses to distinguish non-Chalcedonians (Miaphysites) from the Orthodox tradition of the Byzantine Greek empire. I don’t think the distinction of “oriental” vs “eastern” should be taken seriously, since they really mean the same thing. Putting the Greeks and the non-Chalcedonians in a batch for purposes of claiming they are disunited makes no more sense than putting the Roman Catholics and the non-Chalcedonians into a batch and saying THEY are disunited.

The non-Chalcedonians are in a class by themselves, being Miaphysites they separated from the Diaphysites a long time ago. The Diaphysites were the orthodox Christians of the empire, in other words the future Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox who were one and the same church at the time.

So the non-Chalcedonians could justifiably say “you Diaphysites (meaning the Catholics and Orthodox) are disunified” and they would be right. Although both are still Diaphysite, the Roman Catholic church left Orthodoxy in the eleventh century and diverged quite a bit in the years since.

Oddly enough, although the Miaphysites and Diaphysites definitely parted ways in 451 AD, both groups are very similar to this very day. The two main groupings simply have not agreed on a proper common definition of Christ’s nature. That is a difficult concept to grasp anyway so perhaps it is not surprising.

But that’s it! Nothing more than a disagreement about how to describe the human-divine matrix of Jesus Christ’s nature. The non-Chalcedonians have the same problem with the Latins over this as they have with the Greeks.