Problem regarding orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tradcat1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tradcat1

Guest
Some of my Orthodox friends are trying to convince me to convert me to orthodoxy. Please help me! They are telling that all the other patriarchs are together while only the roman patriach seperated. Sorry, my English isn’t perfect.
 
Last edited:
Tradcat1 said:
They are telling that all the other patriarchs are together while only the roman patriach seperated.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s their opinion.
Tradcat1 said:
Please help me!
Click to expand...
“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church”. Matthew 16:15-20.

Also I’d suggest you post on the Eastern Catholicism board for help. Eastern Catholics primarily come from Churches who returned to the Catholic Church from Orthodoxy, although some have always been Catholic.

You are likely to get more people knowledgeable on Orthodoxy and apologetics specific to Orthodox arguments on that board here at Catholic Answers.
 
Last edited:
Tradcat1 said:
Some of my Orthodox friends are trying to convince me to convert me to orthodoxy. Please help me! They are telling that all the other patriarchs are together while only the roman patriach seperated. Sorry, my English isn’t perfect.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is twenty-four churches in full communion with each other. The Latin Church is what most people call the Roman Catholic Church. There are twenty-three other Catholic churches called eastern Catholic.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Ordinaries of the Roman rite on the chart are the Bishops.

Nice chart to copy and save. Thanks @Vico
 
Last edited:
Tradcat1 said:
They are telling that all the other patriarchs are together while only the roman patriach seperated.
Click to expand...
Let’s see then.

Rome remained Catholic, no doubt.

Constantinople was not supposed to be 2nd place, it was opposed by everyone (including Rome and Eastern Patriarchs) during Chalcedon. During Council of Florence during Middle Ages, Constantinople turned Catholic but as Muslims conquered it, they sold position for money and controlled Orthodoxy in their lands through Ecumenical Patriarch. Muslims made it Orthodox and renounced union with Rome.

Alexandria is Oriental Orthodox… how are they “together” with Eastern Orthodox? They Schismed 600 years before Catholic-Eastern Orthodox Schism happened.

Antioch split into several lines. It’s complicated but basically one line went Oriental Orthodox and then became Catholic during Middle Ages (Syriac Catholic Church). Another line remained Catholic always (Maronite Catholic Church). Byzantine Emperor appointed his own Patriarch against Church Law- Greek Patriarch. This line, during 1700’s or so, became Catholic too (Melkite Greek Catholic Church). Only Eastern Orthodox line is one setup after Melkites became Catholic by Ecumenical Patriarch- it was made from Deacon Sylvester who wasn’t even part of Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch.

Jerusalem was much like Constantinople made Patriarch only thanks to imperial interference (don’t get me wrong, it was always important city… but not a Patriarchate). It was one that remained Eastern Orthodox after the Schism- but it is worth to note that it was historically controlled by Ecumenical Patriarchate or Byzantine (later Ottoman) Government. There were even times when this Patriarch resided in Constantinople.

So their accusation holds no ground 🙂

If they want to count Patriarchs such as Bulgaria (should have been under Rome as clarified by Church Law and Ecumenical Council but Byzantine Government turned them to Greek Christianity by force), Russia, Serbia and some others… they have to understand that becoming Patriarchate wasn’t ever so easy pre-Schism. Even Georgian Church which was very ancient had “Catholicos” and not Patriarch- they were even nominally somewhat under Constantinople because they weren’t a Patriarchate. Eastern Orthodox however changed this ancient practice after Schism. Anyhow, none of these was Patriarchate before the Schism 🙂
 
Last edited:
To elaborate on Orbis’ post, Rome had primacy by divine right. It was the original “special” See. Alexandria and Antioch were elevated later (see the Council of Nicea) in imitation of Rome and based on their Petrine ties (Peter’s right hand man, St. Mark founded the See of Alexandria and Peter Himself Antioch). As a practical matter, Rome governed Europe, Alexandria Africa, and Antioch Asia, with Rome as the final court of appeal.

As early as the First Council of Constantinople, the emperor tried to get the bishop of his city to replace Alexandria as the Eastern primate. This was opposed by Pope St. Damasus, who reiterated the traditional ordering.
Although all the Catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: “You are Peter …(Matt 16:18-19).” In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name “Christians” was first applied, as to a new people.
Click to expand...
This was tried again at Chalcedon, but again, the Roman Pope (St. Leo the Great) vetoed it. However, when Alexandria rejected the definitions of Chalcedon and separated from the Church (leaving only Rome and Antioch), Constantinople filled the void and the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria was instituted and was essentially a vassal of Constantinople. Jerusalem was also separated from the jurisdiction of Antioch at Chalcedon and fell more under the influence of Constantinople, especially when the emperor later made it a patriarchate. The rise of Islam also significantly weakened Antioch to the point where it became significantly reliant on Constantinople.

So by the time of the schism, the only other one of the original three besides Rome, Antioch, was inconsequential compared to Constantinople. The others were politically created vassals of Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
The canard that they usually produce is that the West changed the Nicene Creed.

However, the West followed the principle of non-contradiction. It is NOT a contradiction to say the following two sentences:
  1. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father
  2. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son
 
Tradcat1 said:
Some of my Orthodox friends are trying to convince me to convert me to orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
Christ is in our midst!

How are your Orthodox friends trying to convert you? I only ask as an Orthodox Christian myself and would never think about trying to “convert” my Catholic friends.

ZP
 
I really wish we could finally come back together as one, again, somehow.
 
Maximian said:
The canard that they usually produce is that the West changed the Nicene Creed.
Click to expand...
???

canard?

the west did change the creed as used in liturgy.

whether what it changed it to conflicts the original is a separate question, and heavily involves latin and greek grammar, and which you use as the “base” . . .
 
The West still believes that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

They have simply concluded that He proceeds also from the Son.

If I said I live in the US and then added that also live in New York you would not say I had changed my story, would you?
 
The Orthodox Church still believes in the monarchy of the Father in the Trinity, something the western Church forgot long ago for divine simplicity. This is one of the reasons why the Filioque doctrine is rejected as heterodox by the Orthodox Church. Despite the claims of some ecumenists in recent years, the Filioque is not simply a misunderstanding but a real theological disagreement that is related to how Eastern and Western theologians view the ousia of the Trinity and the role of the Father. I understand it that western theologians are generally tolerant when it comes to the the Orthodox understanding but for us Orthodox this constitutes a significant difference in how the Trinity is to be understood, it’s not a minor point of disagreement or possibly a misunderstanding as the western Church sees it, and it does make a difference in whether one is truly Orthodox or whether one is heterodox, and in the Orthodox point of view, the Roman Catholic and Protestant understanding of the the Father and Holy Spirit is heterodox.
 
Last edited:
Maximian said:
The West still believes that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.
Click to expand...
you have simplified this beyond meaning–there are multiple types of procession which all use the same word in english and latin, while greek has many.

This is the primary source of the whole kerfluffle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top