Should I convert to the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re your last paragraph: If you look at the Articles of the Union of Brest-Litovsk (1595) one of the first things listed as a condition of union is that the Divine Liturgy and other Divine Services will remain untouched.

After VII, the UGCC suppressed the Second Antiphon, the Litany of the Catechumens and the Litany before the Creed because people complained that the Liturgy was too long. Sigh…
 
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” 33 But he said to Him, “Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!”
 
I went to a catechetical workshop yesterday & Sister said that when the Body is sick, you try to heal it. You don’t cut off a member because it is cancerous; you get rid of the cancer, not the particular organ. Iow, you don’t leave the Church because of the actions (or inactions) of the hierarchy.
 
Catholic of course but at the end of the day we are different branches of the same tree. I could be wrong but I do not think there is much that separates us. We are each catholic and orthodox.
 
ziapueblo said:
That’s a question no one here can answer. Both Churches have apostolic succession therefore a valid Eucharist. It comes down to whether or not communion with Rome is a matter of importance to you.

ZP
Click to expand...
Actually

It’s communion with Peter and those in union with Peter. that is what’s important… to Jesus
And Peter’s see is Rome

When Jesus prayed the following,

(All emphasis mine)
Jn 17:
20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one,so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

Unity is to be perfect. with Peter who is the leader of all.

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" Cyprian a.d. 251

BTW, there was no Orthodox Churches in Cyprian’s day.
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
Unity is to be perfect. with Peter who is the leader of all.
Click to expand...
The Petrine Ministry and the Roman Primacy are two different things. The Petrine Ministry, to strengthen the brethren in unity and faith, has been exercised through the primacy of the Church of Rome. Note that the CHURCH holds the primacy, not the man. The Papacy therefore is a VEHICLE through which the Bishop of Rome exercises his special ministry. But when the definition and exercise of the primacy interferes with, or becomes an impediment to, the Petrine Ministry, then it is the primacy that must change, because the Papacy exists to serve the Church, not the Church to exalt the Primacy. To get where we are today, Rome has acted in a high-handed and unilateral fashion for an entire millennium, during which time its approach to its own prerogatives has been entirely tautological: Rome defines the primacy because Rome holds the Primacy. But Rome itself acknowledged that, to be ecumenical, any general council has to involve representatives of the other Churches, AND BE RECEIVED BY THEM (Second Council of Nicaea). Therefore, by Rome’s own canons, there has not been a true Ecumenical Council since 787. Indeed, Rome did not even begin calling its own general councils “ecumenical” until Robert Bellarmine began doing so, for anti-Reformation polemical purposes, in the 16th century.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
40.png
steve-b:
BTW, there was no Orthodox Churches in Cyprian’s day.
Click to expand...
BTW, there were no Roman Catholics either.
Click to expand...
🤣

BTW, The Catholic Church in Rome has been there from the 1st century.
 
ziapueblo said:
40.png
steve-b:
Unity is to be perfect. with Peter who is the leader of all.
Click to expand...
The Petrine Ministry and the Roman Primacy are two different things. The Petrine Ministry, to strengthen the brethren in unity and faith, has been exercised through the primacy of the Church of Rome. Note that the CHURCH holds the primacy, not the man. The Papacy therefore is a VEHICLE through which the Bishop of Rome exercises his special ministry. But when the definition and exercise of the primacy interferes with, or becomes an impediment to, the Petrine Ministry, then it is the primacy that must change, because the Papacy exists to serve the Church, not the Church to exalt the Primacy. To get where we are today, Rome has acted in a high-handed and unilateral fashion for an entire millennium, during which time its approach to its own prerogatives has been entirely tautological: Rome defines the primacy because Rome holds the Primacy. But Rome itself acknowledged that, to be ecumenical, any general council has to involve representatives of the other Churches, AND BE RECEIVED BY THEM (Second Council of Nicaea). Therefore, by Rome’s own canons, there has not been a true Ecumenical Council since 787. Indeed, Rome did not even begin calling its own general councils “ecumenical” until Robert Bellarmine began doing so, for anti-Reformation polemical purposes, in the 16th century.

ZP
Click to expand...
Get some sleep.
 
Funny I don’t see the word Roman Catholic until mid evil times! Two can play at this game @steve-b 😉 you know, like the Orthodox didn’t exist during the first millennium in the unified Church 😂

ZP
 
Last edited:
Learn about the Byzantine Church and the Church of the first millennium. I know a great Facebook group you can learn tons from!

ZP
 
Margaret_Ann said:
There’s an unbroken line of Popes from St. Peter to the present whereas the Patriarchate of Constantinople (it was once Catholic) only can be traced back to the 4th century.
Click to expand...
???

St. Andrew, brother of Peter, founded the church in Byzantium in the first century. Whether we know the names of the intervening bishops changes neither the founding nor significance of that.
Margaret_Ann said:
True trivia tidbit: According to the late Solange Hertz, Old Slavonic was the first vernacular language used in the Liturgy. Prior to that, only Hebrew, Greek & Latin - the three languages on the titulus above the Sacred Head of Our Lord on the Cross - were allowed in the Liturgy.
Click to expand...
Latin, however, was introduced as the vernacular . . .

hawk
 
dochawk said:
St. Andrew, brother of Peter, founded the church in Byzantium in the first century. Whether we know the names of the intervening bishops changes neither the founding nor significance of that.
Click to expand...
You know who I feel sorry for is Saint Paul, one of the glorious apostles and co-founder, along with Saint Peter, of the Church of Rome. Why no successor? The Rodney Dangerfield of the two, no respect I tell ya, no respect lol!

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
Funny I don’t see the word Roman Catholic until mid evil times! Two can play at this game @steve-b 😉 you know, like the Orthodox didn’t exist during the first millennium in the unified Church 😂

ZP
Click to expand...
You need more sleep.
 
Oh yeah! Priests, deacons, monks! They are great. You’d learn so much! They provide and direct you to great resources 😉 Unless you think Latin Catholics should be teaching Byzantines about their traditions?

ZP
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
Oh yeah! Priests, deacons, monks! They are great. You’d learn so much! They provide and direct you to great resources 😉 Unless you think Latin Catholics should be teaching Byzantines about their traditions?

ZP
Click to expand...
AND

They would know and follow canon law. Note: the source I quoted earlier in the thread

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) From: » Are we Orthodox united with Rome?
 
Last edited:
Again, a highly Latinized bishop. Read the current bishops stuff, which I have posted before. What Melkite Church have you been to? I know and have visited quite a few Melkite Churches and Byzantine Catholic monasteries that, unfortunately, you would feel appalled by because they are Orthodox in communion with Rome!

You know that the current Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch wants to relook the Zoghby Initiative, which 25 of 27 Melkite bishops voted for. That would be awesome! The Melkite are the ones who are paving the way for communion between Rome and the East. And Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchuk, you call him what you want, we call him Patriarch, has wanted something similar to the Zoghby Initiative in Ukrain, and with what has happened between the Russian MP, Ukrain and Constantinople, this could be a reality.

As ironic as it is, all the pieces are in place for reunion. Pope Francis is exactly what’s needed. Yes he drives the trads insane but he’s honest about the Papacy and has openly said the Papacy needs to decrease.

All these innovations are a response to Protestantism but really who cares about them? Once Apostolic Christianity is one again, it’s over for the Protestants

ZP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top