N
Nonzi
Guest
I am a recent convert to Catholicism. I know nothing of Orthodoxy besides that it used to be one with Catholicism. How can I know I am in the right half of the split?
Bless you all.
Bless you all.
Honestly, it depends on who you ask.How can I know I am in the right half of the split?
I’m “Greek” Orthodox and the vast majority of parishioners including our priest are not Greek (although his wife is of Greek decent lol).And they seem to be divided along national lines.
Yes!You can be an Eastern Catholic…
Basically, Catholicism was never purely Latin or Greek. We have Western (Latin) Catholics- called Roman Catholics as well. Most Catholics are Roman Catholics, but there are also Eastern Catholics and they use Greek version of Mass (they call it Divine Liturgy), they have some different expressions of faith but they accept Pope and we are one Church. Roman Catholics can attend Eastern Catholics “Masses” and it will count as your Sunday obligation, you can receive their sacraments (even confession or Eucharist), because we are one Church!I know nothing of Orthodoxy besides that it used to be one with Catholicism.
Study history, study what Greek Fathers say about Papacy… but in the end answer is clear. Everyone (even Orthodox) acknowledges that Pope of Rome is Successor of St. Peter the Apostle. If you are in Church with Peter’s successor, you are in Church which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ built upon Peter- in Catholic Church. It comes directly from the Bible.How can I know I am in the right half of the split?
@OrbisNonSufficit, I like how you worded it as an “internal” strife. I have always said that the “schism” is from within the Church and not outside of it.In year 1054 due to internal strife in the Church . . .
We acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St Peter along with the Patriarchs of Anioch and Alexandria, the other Petrine Sees. We do not accept that the Roman Pontiff has supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church.Eastern Orthodox do not accept Pope . .
You could say that but my Greek Orthodox Church is a majority non-Greek ethnicity.. . . their Churches are national- each is led by Patriarch.
The faith is the exact same. The only difference, as I like to say, is what pastries are sold at the parish festival lol!. . . and while faith is generally the same . . .
Yes, the MP broke Eucharistic communion with the EP, but not the other way around. So, I could receive the Mysteries at a Russian Orthodox Church if the priest was willing. I know of a few cases where this is the case and visa versa because there is no other Orthodox Church in the area. Don’t get me wrong though, very embarrassing.Currently Russian Patriarch excommunicated Orthodox “First in Honor” Patriarch (fancy title, no real power over other Patriarchs to put it very simply).
Not really. I was Roman Catholic my whole life, alter server, college campus ministry, Catholic Answers Radio regular, Catholic Answers Forum regular and was into RC apologetics big time for 20 years. I was on the forum all the time debating with Orthodox, Protestants and non-Christians. I knew all the classic RC apologetics tracts and go to Church Fathers quotes. I became Orthodox (a journey that went through the Byzantine Catholic Church).Study history, study what Greek Fathers say about Papacy… but in the end answer is clear.
I understand your view, but I am mostly saying that it came from inside. I am not advocating view that those in Schism remain fully inside the Church… though since Salvation is offered to all and Church is Ark of Salvation, every human being has a relationship with the Church.@OrbisNonSufficit, I like how you worded it as an “internal” strife. I have always said that the “schism” is from within the Church and not outside of it.
Yet Petrine Authority and Primacy rest on Rome. Alexandrine is Petrine See, but historically was referred to as “See of Mark”. Antioch is Petrine See but See of Mark had primacy over it, hence See of Petrine Authority and Ministry logically rests in Rome.We acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St Peter along with the Patriarchs of Anioch and Alexandria, the other Petrine Sees.
I mean Russia vs Constantinople situation. Administrative issues aside, even canonical status of Churches is disputed…The faith is the exact same. The only difference, as I like to say, is what pastries are sold at the parish festival lol!
They speak about inerrancy of Rome (Papal Infallibility, denied by Orthodox), about right to judge all Bishops (universal jurisdiction). While “immediate” might be a bit of a disputed thing, others are not.The Eastern Fathers do speak highly of the Bishop of Rome, but this does not mean supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church.
Honestly, this is one of the longest running, multiple thread, hotly debated topics on CAF. May I direct you to this thread:I am a recent convert to Catholicism. I know nothing of Orthodoxy besides that it used to be one with Catholicism. How can I know I am in the right half of the split?
Bless you all.
I’ve heard this argument before and my thinking is ok, so both those other two ‘Patriarch’ Sees are now and have been for many centuries in non-Catholic countries. To me, it is protection from above that the Roman See did not fall. And it is no coincidence that the EO is divided against itself by all those national Patriarchates, how many are there? 20 or so?We acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St Peter along with the Patriarchs of Anioch and Alexandria, the other Petrine Sees. We do not accept that the Roman Pontiff has supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church.
9 actually: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Georgia, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria.20 or so?