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

[cretu]

i dont think they can. there is no one to call a council. no authority to make a decision when they dissagree.

i know but they dont like the papacy , but they also cant replace it, for me the 0 number of ecumenical councils tells me that something in Holy Orthodoxy isnt very orthodox.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Wow! Now you are saying that I am not convinced that Jesus Christ is the Messiah?!? Such a lack of charity! Such insults! Such judgement!

My discussion with you has ended.

you do get all worked out easily. i never said you dont believe in the Messiah. but you do reject an authority that was stablished by Christ because you cant see in Scriptures, when many others can see it.

what you need to understand is that before you and i were borne the CC already existed. what we must do is if there is dispute among us is to go back and learn how it was done from the beginning. and from the quotes presented here and in other threads from the Fathers shows a clear understanding of the authority of the pope.

:byzsoc:

 

[Mickey]

i know but they dont like the papacy

It is not about disliking the papacy. It is about the papacy looking today like something different than it did when the Churches were one. Even Pope Benedict XVI says:

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco*, CA: Ignatius Press]**

for me the 0 number of ecumenical councils .

Why would there be a need for another council in Orthodoxy. Are there heresies threatening the one true Orthodox Church. No. The first seven great councils still suffice for us.

tells me that something in Holy Orthodoxy isnt very orthodox.

Oh yippee! A wonderful example of Christian chairty.

 

[Mickey]

you do get all worked out easily.

I told you I do not get “worked out”. But I do need to work out more.

but you do reject an authority that was stablished by Christ

Christ established all the apostles to do His will–including St Peter.

what you need to understand is that before you and i were borne the CC already existed.

Yes. East and West were united. Sadly, the West divided Herself from the other four Patriarchates.

what we must do is if there is dispute among us is to go back and learn how it was done from the beginning.

Amen.

 

[wisdomseeker]

It is not about disliking the papacy. It is about the papacy looking today like something different than it did when the Churches were one. Even Pope Benedict XVI says:

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (

San Francisco**, CA: Ignatius Press]**
Why would there be a need for another council in Orthodoxy. Are there heresies threatening the one true Orthodox Church. No. The first seven great councils still suffice for us.
Oh yippee! A wonderful example of Christian chairty.

yes. the statement does not really explain what the primacy meant then.

are you saying that heresies stopped existing since 1054? there has been no more heresies since then?

:byzsoc:

 

[cretu]

It is not about disliking the papacy. It is about the papacy looking today like something different than it did when the Churches were one. Even Pope Benedict XVI says:

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (

San Francisco**, CA: Ignatius Press]**
Why would there be a need for another council in Orthodoxy. Are there heresies threatening the one true Orthodox Church. No. The first seven great councils still suffice for us.
Oh yippee! A wonderful example of Christian chairty.

i dont think the pope said that he`s just a bishop like any other one ,

the first 7 councils are enough, but wait wasnt the apostolic faith enough?? i mean why did they even need councils in the first place?

and i dont know why you took it as an insult, well something is obviously wrong if they cant make an ecumenical council dont you think?

 

[Mickey]

are you saying that heresies stopped existing since 1054? there has been no more heresies since then?

There have always been heresies. Some of the same heresies of early Christianity are present today–only under different names.

But these heresies are not threatening the Holy Orthodox Church like say–arianism threatened the early Church.

 

[Mickey]

i dont think the pope said that he`s just a bishop like any other one

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

**(Rev. 21:14) **
“….and the wall of the city with its twelve foundations, upon which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb…”

i mean why did they even need councils in the first place?

East and West were united and there were many heresies that needed to be addressed.

well something is obviously wrong if they cant make an ecumenical council dont you think?

What makes you think that the Holy Orthodox Church needs to call a council and cannot? Your thinking is odd.

and i dont know why you took it as an insult

You said, "tells me that something in Holy Orthodoxy isnt very orthodox."

If I had said,** “it tells me that something in Catholicism is not very catholic…”** would you take it as an insult?

 

[cretu]

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

**(Rev. 21:14) **
“….and the wall of the city with its twelve foundations, upon which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb…”

so the catholic catehism lied to me??? they also said that Christ it the Head of the Church

East and West were united and there were many heresies that needed to be addressed.

if you wouldnt have erased the first sentence you would have understood my point

What makes you think that the Holy Orthodox Church needs to call a council and cannot? Your thinking is odd.

after a few local councils, the decision of that council spread in the vast majority of the Orthodox Churches, take for example the new calendar, almost all OChurches follow it, why didnt they make that council an ecumenical council if it affects all Orthodox?

You said, "tells me that something in Holy Orthodoxy isnt very orthodox."

If I had said,** “it tells me that something in Catholicism is not very catholic…”** would you take it as an insult?

actually i wouldnt, it would be your personal opinion, but when i said “orthodox” i refered to be a right teaching, not the name of the church you are a member of, if you feel insulted im sorry, though i still cant understand why you took it as an insult.

 

[PJM]

My dear Brothers and Sisters In Christ,

As I read these post one thing is quite evident. A LOT OF TIME is being spent trying to convience Catholics to be Chrsitians:D 

Now, it seems quite logical that Christ FOUNDED the RCC,feel free to check YOUR history books and your bible.

That being the first and most important single truth I've read on these pages, why not simply come back HOME, into the fold, and let the Good Sheppard, lead all of us in converting folks who really need to be converted?

**Is thsi too symplestic to work?** NOT!

 

[Mickey]

so the catholic catehism lied to me???

I do not know. Is the catechism infallible?

they also said that Christ it the Head of the Church

Excellent!

so if you wouldnt have erased the first sentence you would have understood my point

It was the apostolic faith that called the councils together to fight the heresies. Is that better for you?

after a few local councils, the decision of that council spread in the vast majority of the Orthodox Churches, take for example the new calendar, almost all OChurches follow it, why didnt they make that council an ecumenical council if it affects all Orthodox?

Silly wabbit. Most Orthodox faithful (worldwide) follow the Julian calendar. The calendar issue is not something of which a council needs to be called. By the way, I am on the Julian calendar in America. I love it!

when i said “orthodox” i refered to be a right teaching, not the name of the church you are a member of

The one true Church–the Holy Orthodox Church–means right teaching teach Church.

i still cant understand why you took it as an insult.

Pray about it. Perhaps it will be revealed to you.

I would love to teach you more about Holy Orthodoxy, but I must be away from the internet for at least one week.

Have fun kids–I have enjoyed the discussion–but not the insults.

 

[Mickey]

Now, it seems quite logical that Christ FOUNDED the RCC,feel free to check YOUR history books and your bible.

You will be hard pressed to find anything in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition that says Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church. I checked my history books.

 

[PJM]

You will be hard pressed to find anything in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition that says Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church. I checked my history books.

But, my friend, did you actually undertand the message?

Matt. 16:13-19

13 “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I (singular) tell you, (singular) you are Peter, and on this (singular) rock I (singular) will build my (singular) church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (singular) 19 I (singular) will give you (singular) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you (singular) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you (singular) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

1. Why did Jesus select the area of Caesarea Philippi, to make this enormously important appointment?
   
   Caesarea Philippi is located in the northern part of Judea. The above quoted passage took place on a large hill, and was the location of a very large, and locally famous, Pagan Temple. As a “safeguard” the temple was build behind a huge protective ROCK.
2. In O.T. biblical days it was common for cities to be walled and fortified. Further, they really did have a main gate, and there was a Key to the City, that really locked and unlocked the main gate.
3. In the quoted bible passage: “I,” “you,” “my,” and “church” are all singular for very specific reasons. “Church” for example clearly, indisputably, shows God’s intent to start and Shepherd only “one church.”

4. In every walled city there was a “King” which is the role Jesus assumes in this story. “Hail King of the Jews!” Mark 15:18

5. As one might expect, actually running the city was a whole lot like real work, so it was delegated to another, usually called the “Prime Minister.” So we will use that term for the one who actually ran the city, day in, and day out. The P.M. answered ONLY to “the King.” What the PM ordered done, was done, and what the PM forbid, was legally forbidden,
6. “To Bind and or To Loose” were legal and binding at law, Rabbinical Terms, known and accepted by all those Jesus was speaking too as authority to Govern.

7. Just as Jesus is the King in this story, Simon, Now “Peter” (Greek for “rock,”) is the new Prime Minister! As such he in given total and complete autonomous rule and daily governance of the New Church that Jesus has just created. “On this “rock” meaning the very person of Peter himself, “I” will build “my” church.

8. “I will give you” Peter the Key’s to the Kingdom of Heaven. PERIOD!

9. The power to govern is immediate, total, complete, unlimited and binding on all. Amen!

10. Next in verse 19 Jesus says: I (singular) will give to you Simon Bar-Jona (also singular), the key’s to the gate of Heaven (singular).
11. In the Old Testament times it was common practice for the major cities to be “walled in.” They actually were surrounded by wall that had GATES, and the gates, especially the “Main gate” actually had a KEY.
12. Also it was common to have a KING of the City (Jesus is in this role.) And a Prime Minister who actually had COMPLETE Power and Authority to rule and administer the city. The key carrier, actually had sole possession of the “key to the city (the city is a symbol of the Kingdom of God) and ran independently the city, day-in and day-out. The carrier of “the Key,” answered to NOONE except the KING. Simon Peter was given the “Key to the KINGDOM of Heaven,” With complete and total authority to Rule and Administer “the Kingdom.”
13. Why did Jesus, who is God use these very words? Because the words “to bind,” and “to Loose,” were Rabbinical Terms, Binding in Jewish Law. At the time of their pronouncement they were spoken by a Jew, to Jews who would clearly have understood the significance of the words, and their Binding authority. That is why we never read about any attempts to usurp the Power of Simon Peter by any other Apostle! They understood exactly what Jesus said, what Jesus had done, and what Jesus meant.
14. " 17: “And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. This verse gives assent by God the Father to the decision Jesus Proclaimed, and also of the Presence and assent of the Holy Spirit who make know “the Will of The Father.”

19 “I (Reference to a dishonest Prime Minister) will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22* And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.”
Jesus put Peter in charge (COMPLETE CHARGE), and Peter went to Rome..... thus we have a biblical account of the RCC:tiphat:

 

[SSTeacher]

Dear brother Mick,

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.

Hi Marduk,

I certainly did read about your journey to Catholicism, which was initially prompted by the removal of a phrase from the Coptic Liturgy. It is indeed from little acorns that great oak trees grow. I enjoyed reading your story.

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?

I would guess that Number 4 is the one that best describes me – confused and searching. As to which one will achieve the unity that our Lord commands us to have, I would add a Number 9 and select it:

1. Those who love one another because by this all will know that they are the Lord’s disciples.

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

Interesting idea. I had supposed that the Jews were henotheistic and that the Greeks were probably polytheistic. But it may well be as you assert. Saint Peter also made a worthy comment in his first epistle concerning how Christians should conduct themselves in seeking common ground:

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

Thanks for your help and guidance. And all for free, too.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[mardukm]

There have always been heresies. Some of the same heresies of early Christianity are present today–only under different names.

But these heresies are not threatening the Holy Orthodox Church like say–arianism threatened the early Church.

Haven’t certain Protestant sects threatened the ROC enough for the ROC to utilize the State to curb the religious freedoms of these groups? I think Russia has always been, and still is, on the radar of Human rights violations group (vis-a-vis religious freedoms).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[panoikei]

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?

But being sophmoric is fun. And you like I placed far too much emphasis on the obvioius non issue. And the converse. Shorten the debate up a little to save time.

 

[panoikei]

Okay Orthodox guys it’s okay to defend what you believe. Just remember where you are. You are on a Catholic website dedicated to educating people about the Catholic Church, not Orthodoxy. So far my experience with American Orhtodox Christians is that they tend to come from Protestant faiths and fallen away Catholics that have given up in defending the Church from heretics making the Church look bad as opposed to being bad. The Church is not bad, the Church is full of sinners, like us. I’ve done enough study now to realize that what you are claiming just can’t be the truth. Especially when primacy existed during the time Orthodoxy was in communion with the Bishop of Rome. You can hold your breath as long as you want but you still will not change factual documented history. I’ve seen attempts on the Orhodox sights to rewrite history. But knowing how history is written I find this twisted and self serving. If you are offended by my words. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to offend you but as a practicing Catholic I must defend the faith from those that would attempt to tear it down misrepresenting the truth. You stepped on your own toes when you tried to tear down the Catholic Church on a Catholic website. How strange. Are you the type of person that goes to a baptist church and tell them how twisted and heretical their faith is? I think not. So you accept promoting your agenda without check on this forum. How strange.

PAX

 

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by dvdjs
Was Fr. Chrysostom in transition? No doubt.

That is the point.

No Mickey that wasn’t the point at all.

It is patently obvious, 12 years after the fact, that Fr. Chysostom was in some transitional stage when the article was published. The issue, however, was whether or not CA was deceitful by failing to predict his future in the article, or failing to revise his affiliations after his conversion. The answer is: obviously not; the allegations of deception are simply unwarranted.

Are you sure you want to bring Soloviev into this?

Insofar as I did, yes, I am quite sure. But in case you are missing the point again, I simply was providing an example from the same magazine of CA’s clear willingess to identify those who convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. If you want to discuss details of Soloviev’s philosophy, a new thread would be in order. If, instead you only wish to make an ad hominem pot shot against Soloviev as though it were somehow relevant to the issue of CA’s alleged deception, then good luck with that.

 

[Hesychios]

Interesting idea. I had supposed that the Jews were henotheistic and that the Greeks were probably polytheistic. But it may well be as you assert.

No, you were right all along.

The Greeks being polytheistic except for some of the classically educated class who really cannot be easily classified unless as agnostic.

The Hebrews seem to have firmly come out of henotheism into monotheism in the era around the Babylonian exile, at the end of the First Temple period into the beginning Second Temple period. The timeline for that is something of a guess.

The Greek theoretic notion of one divine power or source (whether water, ether or whatever) really comes out of philosophy. The common religion was still polytheistic. The myths and fantasies of Greek religion were held strongly in the rural areas, the urban educated class seems to have had less conviction in them.

Some Greeks replaced religion with philosophical ideas of one god, and that is when Second Temple monotheism came to seem much more credible. Some of these began to visit local synagogues.
Michael*

 

[SSTeacher]

mardukm;4822343:

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).

Interesting idea. I had supposed that the Jews were henotheistic and that the Greeks were probably polytheistic. But it may well be as you assert.

No, you were right all along.

The Greeks being polytheistic except for some of the classically educated class who really cannot be easily classified unless as agnostic.

The Hebrews seem to have firmly come out of henotheism into monotheism in the era around the Babylonian exile, at the end of the First Temple period into the beginning Second Temple period. The timeline for that is something of a guess.

The Greek theoretic notion of one divine power or source (whether water, ether or whatever) really comes out of philosophy. The common religion was still polytheistic. The myths and fantasies of Greek religion were held strongly in the rural areas, the urban educated class seems to have had less conviction in them.

Some Greeks replaced religion with philosophical ideas of one god, and that is when Second Temple monotheism came to seem much more credible. Some of these began to visit local synagogues.
Michael*

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your helpful contribution. I must confess I haven’t spent much time looking into this idea. I recall asking a Rabbi for a comment a couple of years ago but he had no strong feelings about it one way or the other. Interesting topic, though.

Studiously,
Mick