Should I be Catholic or Orthodox?

[Margaret_Ann]

Isaac14:

No - the primate of Ukraine is titled Metropolitan. Not all autocephalous churches are led by a patriarch. A handful are led by bishops titled as either Archbishop or Metropolitan, depending on if they follow a more Greek or Slavic style.

I see. Thank you. I got a bit confused because his title is still “His Beatitude” and while Schismatic, group of Ukrainians who split from Russia did actually claim to be Patriarchate. Oh well, good to know.

Catholic or Orthodox primate?

His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk is technically Major Archbishop but is usually commemorated as Patriarch.

 

[Isaac14]

Catholic or Orthodox primate?

The particular conversation a few posts up was about which Orthodox churches were led by a Bishop with a title of Patriarch.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

OK. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Is the Catholic Church ONE in belief or are there differences in:

Eastern Churches still believe in Filioque theology. Creed varies but thats hardly faith issue.

Limbo is a pious opinion. Same as toll houses.

Fires of Purgatory are dogma based on view of Mark of Ephesus who won the debate at Florence. East may profess it from different view but reality is same.

Burning heretics alive at the stake

Once again state isnt necessarily Church, even if it was called State of the Church.

For many or for all are formulations I dont see how is that division.

Catholic politicians openly advocating abortion rights

People are fallible, Church is not.

Communion in the hand or on the tongue

Practice. Variety does not mean division…

Liberal granting of marriage annulments

Abuses have nothing to do with Faith or division of Church into two.

Also most things can be said about Orthodoxy too. Greeks have different hierarchical names than Slavs (metropolitan vs archbishop). Liturgies may vary (Antiochians consecrate Eucharist differently than some Russians do… some consecrate all bread pieces some don’t). Some commemorate archbishop some entire hierarchy. All those things are just small things of variety and not what you could call division.

However non-transitive communion indeed is division in the Church, as Church either ceases to be one OR ceases to be universal.

 

[ziapueblo]

Even the Orthodox say it in their creed.

Kata + Holon = “Pertaining to the whole; fullness”. As used by Ignatius of Antioch, the term “Katholike Ekklesia” meant the “fullness of the Church”. There was no notion of universality, but rather the notion that through the Eucharist the totality of the Church was present wherever the Eucharist was being celebrated. The universal dimension of the Church was manifested by the communion of all rightly ordained bishops with each other, not with one particular bishop.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Fires of Purgatory are dogma based on view of Mark of Ephesus who won the debate at Florence.

Both East and West believe that the departed require purification of the soul before entering the presence of God, and that prayers for the departed are efficacious to that end.

The Latin Church (for its own cultural and pastoral reasons) chose to elaborate beyond this in the doctrine of purgatory, which describes this purgation as taking place in a distinct “place”, and of being physically painful. It also got wrapped up with the supporting doctrines of temporal punishment and the “treasury of grace”.

The East, on the other hand, stuck with the theologia prima, choosing not to speak authoritatively of that which has not been revealed to us, though it allows speculation as a theologumenon. Hence, the popularity of the Toll House theory.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

How are Orthodox not One?

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

How are Orthodox not One?

Transitive communion.

 

[ziapueblo]

I see. So what I see written often on this forum is A and B are not in communion with one another but C is in communion with both. Is that what you mean?

ZP

 

[po18guy]

You should be an orthodox Catholic.

 

[catholic03]

Solution: Most Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches have a canonically equivalent Eastern Catholic Church.

If you genuinely feel called to the traditions of the East, that’s a possibility.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I see. So what I see written often on this forum is A and B are not in communion with one another but C is in communion with both. Is that what you mean?

Yes. I am not necessarily saying it makes mark of being one invalid, but it surely does not help.

What I noticed as well is that every time someone left Catholic Church,that communion stopped having Ecumenical Councils altogether. I know it is a bit more complicated than that, but indeed it is somewhat interesting.

 

[ziapueblo]

Yes. I am not necessarily saying it makes mark of being one invalid, but it surely does not help.

Understandable, and, although the faith is the same between Orthodox Churches which are not in Eucharistic communion, a very embarrassing situation for us Orthodox nonetheless.

Orthodox would see the Catholic Church in a similar situation; the SSPX, Sedevacantism, etc.

But, as you mentioned, I do not feel that these situations invalidate the “Oneness” of the Church.

Blessed Pascha to you! We start Holy Week.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

although the faith is the same between Orthodox Churches

Which does not make up communion. I understand that notion but as Genesis has said above, unity is in communion, not in sharing faith.

Orthodox would see the Catholic Church in a similar situation; the SSPX, Sedevacantism, etc.

SSPX is somewhat interesting situation… but Sedevacantists are just out of Church. They can’t disturb unity of Church if they are outside it. SSPX are IN the Church and in full communion, but their status is somewhat irregular.

But, as you mentioned, I do not feel that these situations invalidate the “Oneness” of the Church.

Yes, I know that is Orthodox view.

Blessed Pascha to you! We start Holy Week.

Blessed Pascha to you as well!

 

[ziapueblo]

Which does not make up communion. I understand that notion but as Genesis has said above, unity is in communion, not in sharing faith.

I recognize that

SSPX is somewhat interesting situation… but Sedevacantists are just out of Church. They can’t disturb unity of Church if they are outside it. SSPX are IN the Church and in full communion, but their status is somewhat irregular.

There is still some sort of disunity in the Church because of it.

I watched a recent episode of Reason and Theology (I used to really enjoy the show but not so much anymore) with Timothy Flanders, and as he and the moderator were talking, it seems that the Catholic Church is in just as much “disarray” as the Orthodox.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

it seems that the Catholic Church is in just as much “disarray” as the Orthodox.

Could you elaborate on that? It is true Catholic Church is very large and as such contains not only multiple opinions on many issues but also many cultures that work on universal level… so yes there are disagreements over certain small things… though not only is faith the same in entire Church, but so is communion. Communion is mark of unity and everyone in Catholic Church is in full communion with all other members (even SSPX actually). I don’t quite see that being comparable to Orthodoxy though.

 

[nicholasG]

Faith is all you need. I’m quite sure you already know.

 

[ziapueblo]

Could you elaborate on that?

So Timothy Flanders and the shows moderator and talking about factions in the a Church, Bishops (even the Pope) with an agenda trying to be pushed which is in Christian (this particular episode having to do with deaconesses). I don’t see how something like this is any different between what is happening between the EP and MP. Bishops have always had issues with one another. It’s all just a human flaw that will always be around.

ZP

 

[AlNg]

Communion is mark of unity and everyone in Catholic Church is in full communion with all other members (even SSPX actually).

Not true. The SSPX does not accept some of the annulments of the Roman Catholic church. As such, a couple who has remarried after being granted an annulment by the RCC, is not automatically welcomed for communion in the SSPX.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I don’t see how something like this is any different between what is happening between the EP and MP.

It is different in one important way- no break of communion is happening. There is nothing dividing Church.

Bishops have always had issues with one another. It’s all just a human flaw that will always be around.

Yes, and there is no need to schism because of that. Not in Catholicism anyway. Opinions are opinions but we don’t separate people from Church for them unless it is very important issue. Either way, bringing this up as division in Catholicism seems strange. Orthodoxy is split on whether or not contraception is allowed, some Churches re-chrismate even other Orthodox people coming to their jurisdiction etc. Seems much more serious than anything happening in Catholicism, yet that’s not even our point about disunity in Orthodoxy which is much larger.

Not true. The SSPX does not accept some of the annulments of the Roman Catholic church. As such, a couple who has remarried after being granted an annulment by the RCC, is not automatically welcomed for communion in the SSPX.

I don’t quite think that is the case. SSPX do not accept those annulments but I doubt they’d deny communion to someone just like that. Either way full communion is established between each particular Church. SSPX are NOT particular Church as their Bishops lack jurisdiction (and they do not claim it). That is why SSPX is not in Schism in the first place. SSPX are brotherhood of Priests and their laws do not bind any laity at all.