The Catholic Vs. The Orthodox Church: Which is the True Church?

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Roman Catholics and Eastern Greek Orthodox churches accuse the other of false doctrines both base upon tradition:

1. The Catholics reject several of the specific canons of the early ecumenical councils, but the orthodox accept them as inspired.
2. Catholics and Orthodox disagree on the dates of Christmas and Easter. While the Orthodox church claims council at Nice was inspired, yet is rejects the canons of Nicea on the date of Easter which the Catholics accept.
3. The Catholics teach purgatory, yet the Orthodox reject it.
4. Universal papal jurisdiction was a rather large dogfight in 588-606 AD.
5. Although the Orthodox reject Papal infallibility, the decisions of the orthodox synods are considered infallible.
6. The Immaculate Conception is utterly rejected by the Orthodox.
7. The orthodox baptized by full immersion (thrice), the Catholics sprinkle.
8. Orthodox Church, priests can marry, but Catholics priests cannot.
9. The Roman Catholic church introduced instrumental music no earlier than the 7th century and the Orthodox church has never used instrumental music, but like the apostles, sang without instrument.
10. In Catholic communion, the cup is withheld from the members, while the Orthodox float the “crouton looking” bread cubes in the wine. Catholics believe the bread and wine (transubstantiation) become the literal body of Christ when the priest says, “this is my body”. The Orthodox disagrees and says the change takes place at prayer. Catholics use unleavened bread, while Orthodox use leavened bread. Orthodox must keep a ridged schedule of fasts in order to have communion every week, but the most common practice is a minimum of four times a year during the four Orthodox Lents "Christmas, Easter, Peter and Paul, The virgin Mary. Catholics on the other hand, need not eat the hour before, to have communion every day. In the end, Orthodox offer communion weekly and Catholics daily. In practice most Orthodox laity have communion four times year and Catholics weekly. So which of these two traditions is the one the apostles used? All this proves that they have no valid “apostolic tradition”, otherwise they would all agree! They differ on the frequency of communion, the fasting requirements and the actual method of partaking.
11. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine that says the bread and grape juice of the Lord’s supper actually molecularly change to become the flesh and blood of Jesus. Of course this old doctrine was formulated before the advent of molecular microscopes which see no change. For Catholics the “Transubstantiation” occurs when the priest says the words, “this is my body”. For Orthodox the change occurs when the priest offers the prayer of thanks.
12. The “Filioque” scandal: Following the Nicene creed, the Orthodox Church believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone. Then in 1054 AD the Roman church added to the wording of the Nicene creed “And the Son” or the “Filioque.” The Roman church believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from BOTH the Father and the Son.
13. Orthodox keeps the original Nicene Creed, accepted by the Universal Church, East and West, during the first millennium without the addition of “And the Son” or the “Filioque.” It accepts, on faith, Christ’s words in the Gospel, that the Father is the Unoriginate Source of the Life of the Trinity, with the Only-Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit Proceeding from the Father Alone. We cannot know how the Begetting of the Son and the Proceeding of the Spirit from the same Father is different, only that it is and this distinguishes the two Persons.

370 AD: Basil’s approach: Forget Tradition Wars: Let Scripture Decide!

A. Basil wrote in 370 AD:

"What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Basil, Letter 189, 3)

Great theological analysis of the necessity of the papacy for Christian unity:

ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/hub_officeofpeter_july07.asp

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi Mick,
I don’t have any problem with the fact that Father Chrysostom translated to the Catholic church under the Pope at Rome, I just have a problem with CAF presenting this as an Orthodox position, which it is not.

Father Chrysostom was raised in the United States as a Protestant, went to seminary and became (not sure about the brand or denomination) a Minister, possibly Presbyterian. I don’t know whatever else he did before becoming Orthodox, but he was amidst an odyssey when he wrote that piece. It represents transitional thinking not reflecting Orthodox thought. I can guess that by the time that essay was first published he was a priest on his resume only, not serving under an Orthodox bishop, because bishops do not keep men around who think like that and publish about it. But the way it is presented here makes it seem as though there are actually Orthodox priests serving with that opinion.

In other words, to turn it around, would the Roman Catholic church keep priests who publicly denied Papal Universal Jurisdiction or Papal Infallibility? I should think not. They are (according to the Latin church) actually automatically excommunicated, and excommunicated men cannot serve.

I think that the posting of that essay by father Chrysostom was a cheap attempt to ensnare some Orthodox into thinking such opinions are accepted by some in Holy Orthodoxy. This explains why Wisdomseeker would refer to it, he is saying “come on, it’s OK to think like this, other Orthodox do”.

Well, they don’t. When people come to this conclusion they are on their way out.

As I have already explained, there is no such thing as Orthodox in communion with Rome. There are some Catholics who may think that they are Orthodox, God Bless 'em. (There are also Cafeteria Catholics who do not believe in or even necessarily understand Papal Universal Jurisdiction, that does not make them Orthodox either.)

I do wish it wasn’t so hard, but that’s just the way it is.

What makes one Orthodox is correct belief, and correct worship, neither adding nor deleting doctrine. Orthodox do not commune with people who teach errors, which is why, even if they subscribed to the Zoghby Initiative Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox.

Maybe some day yet.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your contribution. I think perhaps we share common ground. I see Orthodoxy and Catholicism are separate, distinct, apart, divided, and in dispute with each other so I identify with your either/or stance.

If I were to become an Orthodox Christian, I would do so because I had come to the conclusion that the doctrines and practices of the Western Church that had been developed since 1054 were wayward and that error had crept into the Catholic Church. I would therefore not have anything formally to do with the Catholic Church until that Church publicly acknowledged its mistakes and repented.

If I were to become a Catholic, I would do so because I had come to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church had rebelled against the legitimate authority of the pope and as a result did not possess the fullness of truth. I would therefore not have anything formally to do with the Orthodox Church until that Church repented of its errors and acknowledged that all roads do indeed lead to Rome.

It seems to me that if there are Orthodox Christians who have a deeply felt need to “be in communion with Rome,” (whatever they understand that to mean) then the logical thing to do would be to step out of Orthodoxy and step into Catholicism and make themselves subject to papal authority. It certainly isn’t helpful to somebody like me who is inquiring into the truth claims of Catholicism and comparing them to the very different truth claims of Orthodoxy to discover that there are groups which are in effect claiming to belong to both sides.

Scripture states: Let your “Yes”’ mean “Yes,” and your “No” mean “No.” Anything more is from the evil one.

Definitively,
Mick

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t have any problem with the fact that Father Chrysostom translated to the Catholic church under the Pope at Rome, I just have a problem with CAF presenting this as an Orthodox position, which it is not.

Father Chrysostom was raised in the United States as a Protestant, went to seminary and became (not sure about the brand or denomination) a Minister, possibly Presbyterian. I don’t know whatever else he did before becoming Orthodox, but he was amidst an odyssey when he wrote that piece. It represents transitional thinking not reflecting Orthodox thought. I can guess that by the time that essay was first published he was a priest on his resume only, not serving under an Orthodox bishop, because bishops do not keep men around who think like that and publish about it. But the way it is presented here makes it seem as though there are actually Orthodox priests serving with that opinion.

I think that the posting of that essay by father Chrysostom was a cheap attempt to ensnare some Orthodox into thinking such opinions are accepted by some in Holy Orthodoxy. Well, they don’t.

Your remarks are extremely unfair to CA. As I mentioned to Patrick1982 above, the link is to a journal, the article dates to a time when Fr was an Orthodox priest and had been one for a decade - ie far longer than many of the self-appointed experts here who pontificate about what is or what is not allowably Orthodox.

Was Fr. Chrysostom in transition? No doubt, as he was in the Catholic Church by the end of that year. My guess is that “This Rock” would have been very happy to report his conversion, and label the article as thoughts of an former Orthodox, now Catholic, priest - akin to what they wrote about Soloviev in the same issue, "rought up Russian Orthodox, eventually a convert to the Catholic faith, he explained to his countrymen why the Church had to have Peter as its head."

 

[dvdjs]

So Dvdjs - do you have an actual point or are you trying to make things I’ve said seem worse than they are so that I get an infraction of some sort? He clarified- fine, what am I supposed to add to it? I still find it bordering on deceptive for reasons Hesychios already stated… if not deceptive at least misleading.

I made my point.

 

[Patrick1982]

I made my point.

congratulations.

 

[panoikei]

It’s not about the name on the sign.

It is how the church has functioned from the beginning. No communion with churchmen who teach error. If these individuals (whether bishops, priests or laypersons) want to commune with the rest of the church, they must not teach error or commune with any who do.

Michael

And the Catholic Church believes and teaches with authority that the Orhtodox Churches have sinned by this schism that divides the Lord’s body. The Church has reached out time and time again to attempt reunificaiton, but having it’s hand slapped or the authority spited will not work in reuniting the East with the West. The scriptures are very clear on the authority and it seems obvious that pride is getting in the way. I love the Orhodox Church [es] and would love to be part of it, however, I can not get past the reality that the scriptures and tradition point to the primacy of Peter over the Church and the Tradition of the same authority being passed on down throughout history. Even infallibility seems obvious as well just by pure logic. I pray for reunification. Pride will keep us apart until the end. Sin exists among believers. Don’t blame the Church for the actions of the few or even the many.

 

[panoikei]

By the same token to call yourself “The Catholic Church” doesn’t mean that you are… good luck with that belief. Oh sorry- I thought we were being obnoxious now.

Obnoxious is not part of what I’m trying to be. Sorry you feel that I am. I am merely stating the obvious “one holy catholic and apostolic church”. So has the Orhtodox Church changed the words of the Nicene Creed to include Orthodox? Then when one reads Matt 16:18 I can’t help think how can someone not see this? Also, knowing that Antioch is the first place the term “Christians” was referred to the early believers but also Catholic at least by what St. Ignatius wrote. Then you read the early church fathers and see the bishop of Rome given primacy. Recognized for it even not only in scripture by by later bishops as well. Pride is a big thing to overcome. Look what it did to Lucifer and his minions. The continuation of this arguement is just self-defeating pride from my perspective. I wanted to become Orhtodox in the beginning, but have found charity lacking among the believers of Orhtodoxy more than in the believers of Catholicism. Go ahead, continue your fight, but your fight is in vain. You shall know them by their fruits.

 

[panoikei]

By the same token to call yourself “The Catholic Church” doesn’t mean that you are… good luck with that belief. Oh sorry- I thought we were being obnoxious now.

Let’s correct this grammatical error. You say I refer to myself as the Catholic Church… Sorry, but this is just way off. I am not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church exists and is universal. Only Orthodox beleivers are members of the Lords Body called the Catholic Church or the Universal Church, however you want to put it. Like I said in a previous post but put in a different way in this one, the Nicene Creed does not say “I believe in one holy orhtodox and apostolic church”. Get that part right and stop trying to play around it. I hear something different from each one of you guys. It must be hard to fight off truth when you are chasing ghosts with straw man arguments.

Peace and Love in Christ Jesus.

P.

 

[Patrick1982]

Let’s correct this grammatical error. You say I refer to myself as the Catholic Church… Sorry, but this is just way off. I am not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church exists and is universal. Only Orthodox beleivers are members of the Lords Body called the Catholic Church or the Universal Church, however you want to put it. Like I said in a previous post but put in a different way in this one, the Nicene Creed does not say “I believe in one holy orhtodox and apostolic church”. Get that part right and stop trying to play around it. I hear something different from each one of you guys. It must be hard to fight off truth when you are chasing ghosts with straw man arguments.

Peace and Love in Christ Jesus.

P.

Let’s not be sophmoric. When I said “you” I obviously was referring to the communion of believers that together call their Church “the Catholic Church”. We most definitely believe we are the Catholic Church, and that our Church is catholic, the One Church established by Christ, and in using the qualifier “Orthodox” when referring to our Church we are distinguishing it from those that would claim to be the Church, but are not ‘right-believing’ and are therefore heterodox. We “fight off truth”, huh? Since we obviously aren’t wasting time being courteous… how old are you exactly?

 

[Patrick1982]

With Great Lent quickly approaching and considering the tone of this thread I’m beginning to think it would be in my best interest spiritually to limit my participation here. To anyone I’ve offended: please forgive this sinner. Good luck *sticking it *to us panoikei…

 

[Hesychios]

And the Catholic Church believes and teaches with authority that the Orhtodox Churches have sinned by this schism that divides the Lord’s body. The Church has reached out time and time again to attempt reunificaiton, but having it’s hand slapped or the authority spited will not work in reuniting the East with the West. The scriptures are very clear on the authority and it seems obvious that pride is getting in the way. I love the Orhodox Church [es] and would love to be part of it, however, I can not get past the reality that the scriptures and tradition point to the primacy of Peter over the Church and the Tradition of the same authority being passed on down throughout history. Even infallibility seems obvious as well just by pure logic. I pray for reunification. Pride will keep us apart until the end. Sin exists among believers. Don’t blame the Church for the actions of the few or even the many.

Primacy and supremacy are two entirely different things, and you are conflating the two.

I am not surprised, of course. It is what you have been taught. However someone needs to explain this to you…assuming the Petrine primacy was something like the Papacy of the modern era is telescoping history. You will not find it in the early church and nothing can explain this fact away.

What you have is a theory, but it does not work out in history.

That sin of schism began in the west with the introduction of theological novelties it could not control, plus the actions of Cardinals Humbert and Frederic, perhaps enabled by the elixir of hubris. The church awaits Romes’ return to the Faith that we may all be One.

Prayers for you.

 

[Hesychios]

"rought up Russian Orthodox, eventually a convert to the Catholic faith, he explained to his countrymen why the Church had to have Peter as its head."
Apparently they did not know much about the things Soloviev actually taught, only what sounds good to them. I wonder if they had anything nice to say about his Sophiology.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mick,

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your contribution. I think perhaps we share common ground. I see Orthodoxy and Catholicism are separate, distinct, apart, divided, and in dispute with each other so I identify with your either/or stance.

I don’t know if you read the link I gave you in my post#53 to the testimony of my translation to the Catholic Church. I used to be a Coptic Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome. The reason I came into the Catholic communion is because I discovered that everything bad I had previously believed about the Catholic Church were just plain misconceptions about what the Catholic Church taught. I was able to come into Catholic communion with a clear conscience that I was not rejecting anything of my Coptic Orthodox identity EXCEPT my MISconceptions about the Catholic Church.

There are as many difference mindsets about this matter as there are people in the world, I suppose. The following is a list of a few I have discerned:

1. Those who cannot see the similarities.
2. Those who refuse to see the similarities.
3. Those who are confused and bitter.
4. Those who are confused and searching.
5. Those who see the differences yet understand that they are not enough to break unity.
6. Those who see the differences yet understand that they can be explained.
7. Those who leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy, or leave Orthodoxy for Catholicism, and work for unity through understanding.
8. Those who leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy, or leave Orthodoxy for Catholicism, and work for unity through uniformity.

The question is, which one of these mindsets do you possess, and which one of these mindsets will achieve the unity that our Lord commands us to have?

Do you recall what St. Paul taught in face of the pagan Greeks? Did he go around proclaiming to them - there is nothing in you that is commendable! No! He sought common ground! He told them that the statue of their unknown God was actually the same God as that worshipped by Christians (many think the Greeks were polytheistic, but that is not true - they were actually henotheistic). What a bold statement from St.Paul that gives us our example - seek common ground!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

That sin of schism began in the west with the introduction of theological novelties it could not control, plus the actions of Cardinals Humbert and Frederic, perhaps enabled by the elixir of hubris. The church awaits Romes’ return to the Faith that we may all be One.

Nah. Before the novel positions of the Greeks, who sought to condemn the Latins for use of unleavened bread, for use of the Filioque, for having a celibate priesthood, etc., the Latins and Greeks were getting along just fine. The Latins were just reacting to the excesses of some the Greeks (granted, some Latins simply OVERreacted). Sts. Methodius, Cyril, and Maximos the Confessor, just to name a few, are true examplars of Orthodoxy in communion with Rome.

Hubris is on the part of those who would seek to impose division on matters that these Saints did not consider sufficient to break the unity of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Was Fr. Chrysostom in transition? No doubt

That is the point.

Soloviev in the same issue, “**rought up Russian Orthodox, eventually a convert to the Catholic faith, he explained to his countrymen why the Church had to have Peter as its head.” **
Are you sure you want to bring Soloviev into this?

 

[Mickey]

Hubris is on the part of those who would seek to impose division on matters that these Saints did not consider sufficient to break the unity of the Church.

I am wondering if these saints would have accepted the doctrines of purgatory, IC, and papal infallibility.

 

[Mickey]

Then when one reads Matt 16:18 I can’t help think how can someone not see this?

**Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (*Sermon ***229).
Blessed Augutine

 

[wisdomseeker]

That is the point.

Are you sure you want to bring Soloviev into this?

why not? a man who was excommunicated for wanted the union of the Church. for recognizing the authority of the CC.
judge for yourself if this makes any sense. a man being condemned for wanted to do good. this is you alls problem right there.

here for anyone to see what soloviev was about.

evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/soloviev.htm

Peace and Love of God for all people who seek the Truth.

 

[mardukm]

I am wondering if these saints would have accepted the doctrines of purgatory, IC, and papal infallibility.

The Dogma of Purgatory as is, definitely.

The IC, with explanation, most likely.

Papal infallibility as an expression of the infallibility of the Church, not the separate, personal infallibility that non-Catholic polemicists pretend that it is, even more likely.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (*Sermon ***229).
Blessed Augutine

yep. try to separate a man from his faith. what a stretch. humnnnn.

as we know Peter’s faith was tested a few times and few times it failed. but St Peter never gave up on the Lord, despite of his little faith.

and the confession was not about the faith of St Peter. for Jesus says: “bless are you Jonas for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but the Father in Heaven.” notice Jesus never said your faith revealed this to you but the Father in Heaven. therefore the authority given to St Pete could not have been based on his faith.
should God really trust on our faith? should we really trust on our faith? how many times have we failed our God?

evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/soloviev.htm

:byzsoc: