B
Belle2031
Guest
How is the Catholic church, Episcopal church and Greek Orthodox church different from one another? How are they the same? Thanks for your help.
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
The answer to that is going to depend, to a large extent, on who is answering.
GKC
GKC
R
ricmat
Guest
Welcome to the forums Belle2031!
Good question.
I’m not aware of a short summary of the differences. You can find the teachings of the Catholic Church in the Catechism (which is also on-line).
I’m not sure where you could get authoritative teachings for the Episcopal Church, or for those Orthodox who are not in communion with Rome.
Something that is really a key element is that Catholics believe that Peter was the first pope, the rock on which Christ built his church, and that he and his successors were invested with the power to “bind and loose”. Also that Peter was told by Christ to “feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep.” This makes the current pope the worldly shepherd of the Kingdom, acting on behalf of Christ. If you believe this, it leads only to Catholicism.
Almost any discussion of this versus that religion (which includes Catholicism) will include some discussion of the above.
B
Belle2031
Guest
hey can you give me some information about the Catholic church and converting and all that good stuff? I was brought up baptist but have been going to greek orthodox and catholic churches recently because I feel closer to God with them and I want to make informed choices thank you
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
On the differences between the Orthodox and the pope of Rome, you might want to check out the Eastern Christianity Forum, where this gets discussed a lot.
As the difference between us Orthodox and Latins on the one hand and the Epicopalians on the other, depends on what Episcopalians you are talking about: they go the whole spectrum from being Orthodox Catholic in everything but name (and even then: the Orthodox have the Western Rite Orthodox and the Latins the Anglican Usage) to those who worshipp the great mother goddess.
You said that you go to DL (Divine Liturgy) and mass. From the Orthodox perspective, that’s where to start, seeing the Orthodox in their native habitat.
W
water
Guest
Belle, welcome to the forums! I hope you will find many useful information for your faith journey.
On the homepage of this Catholic website, you can find many information - under the menu “Libraries”, you will be able to read more on different topics:
catholic.com/
For conversion:
On main page: chnetwork.org/converts.htm
On their site’s forums: chnetwork.org/forums/forum11/
Conversion stories on this forum:
some of the links are:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=181885
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=173716
In this site, you see many members having their signature as “Tiber Swim Team …” - this means they have converted to Catholic.
God bless you on your journey.
H
Hellisreal
Guest
I am wondering how the episcopals fit in here?
M
Montalban
Guest
There’s a debate going on in general apologetics where wave after wave of Catholic has launched themselves into it by saying God can be injured.
That’s a major difference between them and Orthodox - who actually believe God is all-powerful (and therefore can’t be injured)
M
Montalban
Guest
Up the back, but no shoving.I am wondering how the episcopals fit in here?
R
ricmat
Guest
Huh?
Please show me an official Catholic teaching that “God can be injured”, or that God is not all-powerful.
Why would you imply such a thing? Don’t answer. I know why.
M
manualman
Guest
I’ll attempt an entirely too brief an oversimplified history of the three groups.
First, there were Jesus’ apostles. They began the church after Pentecost. They spread out across the known world and made converts to Christ.
About a thousand years later, the problems of geography, politics, language, and human nature (sin) had gradually built up quite a bit of resentment between Christians of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire and the Western part. Christians in the East believe that EACH of the apostles was equal in authority and that Peter had only a nominal headship. In the West, christians believed that Jesus special treatment of and words for Peter (and later holders of his office) bestowed upon him special additional duties of headship (what we call Pope today) that were not shared with the successors of the other apostles. These differences came to a head, mostly due to politics and power issues, but resulted in a schism between what are today called the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church (even nomenclature makes for sore feelings sometimes!). The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as true churches with valid sacraments and in apostolic succession, but as being not in union with the successor of Peter as Christ willed. The orthodox do not have a single attitude towards catholics. (Forgive me this editorial
Instead, they predictably have a wide variation of interpretations on the status of catholics and the status of our sacraments, depending on the view of their particular patriarch. I say predictably since this outcome IMO stems from their refusal to believe that Christ willed for his church to have a final arbiter of disputed issues!
Some 500 years later, an English King in catholic England wanted a divorce, the pope wouldn’t give him one, and the King declared the pope to have no religious authority in England. He thus took the English church into schism, then the next generation took it into protestantism (repudiation of sacraments and value of apostolic succession). Catholicism today sees the Anglican Church (Episcopal) as non-catholic and not having valid sacraments because their priestly ordinations for at least a generation were not performed in a valid manner by a true bishop. (To which many Anglicans have a hot response!) The beliefs of the Episcopal Church today are not describable. They seem to despise dogmatism as the greatest of sins. Best to just ask the ones you know what they believe…
Naturally this is far too short to accurately sum up all the issues and I will therefore soon receive some angry responses! Such is the nature of man: always squabbling, always presenting incomplete pictures. Its a wonder He still puts up with us at all…
First, there were Jesus’ apostles. They began the church after Pentecost. They spread out across the known world and made converts to Christ.
About a thousand years later, the problems of geography, politics, language, and human nature (sin) had gradually built up quite a bit of resentment between Christians of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire and the Western part. Christians in the East believe that EACH of the apostles was equal in authority and that Peter had only a nominal headship. In the West, christians believed that Jesus special treatment of and words for Peter (and later holders of his office) bestowed upon him special additional duties of headship (what we call Pope today) that were not shared with the successors of the other apostles. These differences came to a head, mostly due to politics and power issues, but resulted in a schism between what are today called the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church (even nomenclature makes for sore feelings sometimes!). The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as true churches with valid sacraments and in apostolic succession, but as being not in union with the successor of Peter as Christ willed. The orthodox do not have a single attitude towards catholics. (Forgive me this editorial
Instead, they predictably have a wide variation of interpretations on the status of catholics and the status of our sacraments, depending on the view of their particular patriarch. I say predictably since this outcome IMO stems from their refusal to believe that Christ willed for his church to have a final arbiter of disputed issues!Some 500 years later, an English King in catholic England wanted a divorce, the pope wouldn’t give him one, and the King declared the pope to have no religious authority in England. He thus took the English church into schism, then the next generation took it into protestantism (repudiation of sacraments and value of apostolic succession). Catholicism today sees the Anglican Church (Episcopal) as non-catholic and not having valid sacraments because their priestly ordinations for at least a generation were not performed in a valid manner by a true bishop. (To which many Anglicans have a hot response!) The beliefs of the Episcopal Church today are not describable. They seem to despise dogmatism as the greatest of sins. Best to just ask the ones you know what they believe…
Naturally this is far too short to accurately sum up all the issues and I will therefore soon receive some angry responses! Such is the nature of man: always squabbling, always presenting incomplete pictures. Its a wonder He still puts up with us at all…
B
Belle2031
Guest
so do greek orthodox still do penance (I know the still do confession) and the rosary like Catholics?
G
GKC
Guest
“Some 500 years later, an English King in catholic England wanted a divorce, the pope wouldn’t give him one, and the King declared the pope to have no religious authority in England.”
As a thumb-nail sketch, and leaving out a lot of the interesting bits, that whole para is not too bad a summary, from this Anglican’s viewpoint. But Henry actually sought what was commonplace in those days, esp. amongst the upper classes, with dynastic marriages, and what he should have sought: a decree of nullity with respect to his first marriage, not a divorce.
Otherwise, not all that bad.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
As a thumb-nail sketch, and leaving out a lot of the interesting bits, that whole para is not too bad a summary, from this Anglican’s viewpoint. But Henry actually sought what was commonplace in those days, esp. amongst the upper classes, with dynastic marriages, and what he should have sought: a decree of nullity with respect to his first marriage, not a divorce.
Otherwise, not all that bad.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
M
Montalban
Guest
Huh?
We need not dwell upon the possibility of the salvation of mankind or upon
its appropriateness. Nor need we remind the reader that after God had
freely determined to save the human race, He might have done so by
pardoning man’s sins without having recourse to the Incarnation of the
Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Still, the Incarnation of the Word
was the most fitting means for the salvation of man, and was even
necessary, in case God claimed full satisfaction for the injury done to him
by sin (see INCARNATION).
newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm
1494 The confessor proposes the performance of certain acts of
“satisfaction” or “penance” to be performed by the penitent in order to **repair the harm caused by sin **and to re-establish habits befitting a disciple of Christ.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1494.htm
etc. being debated on this thread…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185650
Then what was the point in posting? Don’t answer. I know why
M
Montalban
Guest
We don’t have ‘the rosary’ (as far as I’m aware)
S
swariffin
Guest
Dear brothers and sisters,
This thread is good for us to learn from each other. Please do not forget, however, that we are supposed to focus on the similarities rather than blowing out the differences. God bless you all.
This thread is good for us to learn from each other. Please do not forget, however, that we are supposed to focus on the similarities rather than blowing out the differences.
God bless you all.
M
Montalban
Guest
Similarities are part of the OP.Dear brothers and sisters,
This thread is good for us to learn from each other. Please do not forget, however, that we are supposed to focus on the similarities rather than blowing out the differences.
We all believe in Jesus.
R
ricmat
Guest
Newadvent is a good source, but is not an official source. But even then we’re talking about harm to God’s dignity. The harm is not to God himself, but to his dignity - which is how other humans see God. When we damage other’s perceptions of God, that is not a good thing.Huh?
We need not dwell upon the possibility of the salvation of mankind or upon
its appropriateness. Nor need we remind the reader that after God had
freely determined to save the human race, He might have done so by
pardoning man’s sins without having recourse to the Incarnation of the
Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Still, the Incarnation of the Word
was the most fitting means for the salvation of man, and was even
necessary, in case God claimed full satisfaction for the injury done to him
by sin (see INCARNATION).
newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm
1494 The confessor proposes the performance of certain acts of
“satisfaction” or “penance” to be performed by the penitent in order to **repair the harm caused by sin **and to re-establish habits befitting a disciple of Christ.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1494.htm
etc. being debated on this thread…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185650
Then what was the point in posting? Don’t answer. I know why
The harm caused by sin (that needs repairing) that you quote above relates to the harm caused to other humans, not to God.
G
GKC
Guest
Yes, actually, Henry did finally get a decree of nullity with respect to his first marriage (Catherine). And the judgement was as Henry had wanted; that the orginal dispensation that permitted him to marry Catherine was ultra vires, in that it violated the Levitical prohibition. But that was from Cranmer, as Archbishop of Canterbury, after Henry had taken the Church in England private, and from a RC perspective, doesn’t count…
The second wife situation ended much more simply. She was beheaded, for treason (following her conviction for adultery).
GKC
- Status