What is the difference between Catholics and greek orthodox?

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t see how you can avoid politics if you are a head of state.

The bishop of Rome feeding and tending the flock of Jesus Christ without the influence of secular political powers. Is not the same as the Orthodox Church’s who require their Emperors and secular political powers to approve appointments and can limit the powers of some Orthodox Church’s.

Don’t confuse what the Bishop of Rome gives to God, with what belongs to the Caesar’s.

 

[Seraphim73]

The bishop of Rome feeding and tending the flock of Jesus Christ without the influence of secular political powers. Is not the same as the Orthodox Church’s who require their Emperors and secular political powers to approve appointments and can limit the powers of some Orthodox Church’s.

Don’t confuse what the Bishop of Rome gives to God, with what belongs to the Caesar’s.

But what happens when the Pope is Caesar?

 

[Tomdstone]

Oddly that you have the Bishop of Rome breaking communion with the original apostolic see’s Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

I had nothing to do with the fact that the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem remained in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople after he was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic legate. And the Bishop of Rome decided that he did not want full communion with those four Patriarchs because of politics?.

 

[prodromos]

Hello! Are you aware that the great Patriarch of Constantinople successfully usurped the authority from the Eastern apostolic see’s of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem??? Do we need to say any more?

Such statements are why I usually ignore your posts. No authority was taken from Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem. They all continue to hold the same authority which all bishops hold in the Church.

Then he tried to usurp authority from the bishop of Rome, but found opposition coming from his own Eastern Church’s and in favor of the Chair of Peter resided with the bishop of Rome, that the Patriarch of Constantinople had to make the false claim that he was on a par and equal to the bishop of Rome.

Same false claim as above.

Oddly that you have the Bishop of Rome breaking communion with the original apostolic see’s Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. When the Patriarch of Constantinople was never an original Apostolic see.

Rome did indeed break communion with Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in praxis if not in word.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

But what happens when the Pope is Caesar?

What an interesting question.

How does one conclude the bishop of Rome is a Caesar, when She is no longer under the influence of secular powers?

Are you saying the Apostle St. Peter was a Caesar in the first century, because St. Peter’s Church was not influenced by Caesar or the Jewish Sanhedrin?

Peter today in the Bishop of Rome has returned to the original position as the Apostle St. Peter.

The difference remains the Bishop of Rome is free from secular powers while the Orthodox Church’s remain under secular rule.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I had nothing to do with the fact that the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem remained in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople after he was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic legate. And the Bishop of Rome decided that he did not want full communion with those four Patriarchs because of politics?.

I am hopeful that you have the legate excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople and not the dead pope.

The schism between the Greek Orthodox, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem taken on a case by case does not lead to differences between them in what pertains to the divine economy.

You raise a subject that pertains to matters of authority influenced from the power of politics, while using Church disciplines and theological expressions of the faith as the main focus which created the schism.

The subjects in regards to the matters of faith become minor compared to the rejection of the authority in Peter’s Chair by some Orthodox Church’s. From a historical point of view, no one ever questioned the authority of Peter’s Chair, until a Patriarch was placed in the New Rome Constantinople by the secular Emperor. It is here the politics of authority begin to challenge the authority God gave to Peter alone with the keys from heaven.

It is this authority derived from diverse views stemming from politics, economics and jurisdiction that feeds the flame of schism not differences between the bishop of Rome and the Greek Orthodox Church’s.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Such statements are why I usually ignore your posts. No authority was taken from Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem. They all continue to hold the same authority which all bishops hold in the Church.

Same false claim as above.

Rome did indeed break communion with Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in praxis if not in word.

False claim? Can you explain what it was that the Patriarch of Constantinople usurped from Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem?

Can you explain why the Patriarch of Constantinople councils and makes the public claim that he is equal to the Chair of Peter the Bishop of Rome?

I agree the Patriarch of Constantinople would of been deposed had he tried to usurp the authority from the apostolic offices, which he could never do.

If Rome broke communion, why is it that the Greek Orthodox reject communion with the bishop of Rome? When the bishop of Rome does not reject communion with the Greek Orthodox. Can you explain this phenomenon today?

 

[Tomdstone]

If Rome broke communion, why is it that the Greek Orthodox reject communion with the bishop of Rome? When the bishop of Rome does not reject communion with the Greek Orthodox. Can you explain this phenomenon today?

Please see post #4. Today there are major theological differences between the two Churches. The Orthodox Church has not changed but still maintains the theological tradition it professed in 1054 when the Greek Patriarch was excommunicated by a letter placed on the altar of the Hagia Sophia by a Roman Catholic papal legate. Further, the Roman Catholic crusaders have stolen priceless treasures from the Greek Orthodox Churches in 1204 and these items have not been returned. Many of these stolen treasures remain in Roman Catholic Churches all over Europe, such as St. Mark’s in Venice, for example.
Also if a Roman Catholic converts to Greek Orthodox, is he excommunicated or not? A situation arose in this area where a prominent Roman Catholic did so and the bishop declared that he was excommunicated. If the bishop of Rome does not reject communion with the Greek Orthodox, why then is a Catholic excommunicated if he converts to the Greek Orthodox Church?

 

[Seraphim73]

What an interesting question.

How does one conclude the bishop of Rome is a Caesar, when She is no longer under the influence of secular powers?

Are you saying the Apostle St. Peter was a Caesar in the first century, because St. Peter’s Church was not influenced by Caesar or the Jewish Sanhedrin?

Peter today in the Bishop of Rome has returned to the original position as the Apostle St. Peter.

The difference remains the Bishop of Rome is free from secular powers while the Orthodox Church’s remain under secular rule.

But the Bishop of Rome is a secular power. He is the absolute monarch of a state. And St Peter was an Apostle not a king.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

But the Bishop of Rome is a secular power. He is the absolute monarch of a state. And St Peter was an Apostle not a king.

I believe you have the Vatican and the bishop of Rome confused with the Chair of Peter who presides in Rome.

 

[Seraphim73]

False claim? Can you explain what it was that the Patriarch of Constantinople usurped from Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem?

No one usurped anything. Primacy was based mostly on the political importance of the city. Rome was the largest city and the capital of the empire so it was ranked first. Alexandria was the second largest city and the major cultural center so it was ranked second. Antioch was the third most important city so it was ranked third. Jerusalem was irrelevant politically so even though it’s the place where Jesus lived, died and rose it was not even numbered among the patriarchates until Chalcedon and then was ranked last. So when Constantinople became the largest city and the capital of the empire it was granted equal privileges with Rome.

Can you explain why the Patriarch of Constantinople councils and makes the public claim that he is equal to the Chair of Peter the Bishop of Rome?

Explained above. I will say though this is one of the reasons this forum is always good for a laugh. I’m constantly told that the reason the Orthodox are separated from Rome is pride but then the moment anyone even suggests that some human being on the planet Earth is equal to their pope the indignation begins.

Irony

If Rome broke communion, why is it that the Greek Orthodox reject communion with the bishop of Rome? When the bishop of Rome does not reject communion with the Greek Orthodox. Can you explain this phenomenon today?

Nobody rejects communion with the Pope. If he is willing to confess the Orthodox faith in its entirety then we will have communion.

 

[Seraphim73]

I believe you have the Vatican and the bishop of Rome confused with the Chair of Peter who presides in Rome.

No I don’t have anything confused. Pope Francis is the absolute monarch of the state of Vatican City. And prior to the creation of Vatican City the popes were the monarchs of the Papal States. So it’s hardly possible to say that the popes were and are free of secular influence when they themselves are the heads of a state.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Tomdstone;12692214]Please see post #4. Today there are major theological differences between the two Churches.

The Western theological expression of the apostolic faith differs from the Greek Orthodox theological expressions of the Apostolic faith, although the substance of the Apostolic faith does not differ specifically expressed from the divine economy of salvation and grace revealed from Apostolic succession and the sacrament of holy orders.

The Greek Orthodox may object and place false claims that misinterpret the Western theological expression of the Apostolic Catholic faith. In addition some Greek Orthodox members take it upon themselves to reject to learn and come to the understanding’s of the West’s theological expression that matures in understanding from the divine seed planted by Jesus Christ of the apostolic faith that is expressed in every age from diverse tongues, tribes, nations and peoples.

The Orthodox Church has not changed but still maintains the theological tradition it professed in 1054 when the Greek Patriarch was excommunicated by a letter placed on the altar of the Hagia Sophia by a Roman Catholic papal legate.

I pray that the Orthodox never move from her apostolic faith. The problem with the Orthodox, her theological expression and understandings remains stagnant to an ever changing world. While the West has continued the fight of faith to be proclaimed to new peoples, tongues and tribes (cultures, languages) so that these can come to the full understandings and unchanged apostolic faith expressed in a language and understanding so that the apostolic faith never changes in any age, never mind the internal power struggles that have plagued the Church in both East and West.

Further, the Roman Catholic crusaders have stolen priceless treasures from the Greek Orthodox Churches in 1204 and these items have not been returned. Many of these stolen treasures remain in Roman Catholic Churches all over Europe, such as St. Mark’s in Venice, for example

. There is plenty of blame of Church stealing on both sides. Only reveals the Church militant encompasses true sinners and true saints. This only reveals compatibility not a difference.

Also if a Roman Catholic converts to Greek Orthodox, is he excommunicated or not? A situation arose in this area where a prominent Roman Catholic did so and the bishop declared that he was excommunicated. If the bishop of Rome does not reject communion with the Greek Orthodox, why then is a Catholic excommunicated if he converts to the Greek Orthodox Church?

I thought our discussion referenced the bishop of Rome being refused communion with some Greek Orthodox Church’s. You raise the question of a lay person. I don’t know all the specifics to your example. Maybe the bishop declared officially the communion of the person in question is no longer Latin and no longer his responsibility?

I find it rare for the Catholic Church to officially excommunicate a lay person, when a lay person does not reach the full deposit of faith and understanding as a priest, bishop would with holy orders. In fact I don’t know of any lay person being excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Although, a Lay person have been known to self excommunicate themselves from the Catholic Church.That said a bishop is free to exercise his authority within his diocese and is not dictated by the bishop of Rome so long as abuse does not take place.

So the question is; did the bishop excommunicate a lay person from his responsibility of the lay person’s soul by His divine authority or did the bishop excommunicate the lay person from the whole Catholic faith? Do you know the internal and external exact specific facts to declare a Catholic bishop excommunicated a lay person?
For a bishop to do such a thing, He will know facts that is usually not exposed to external sources to respect and protect the excommunicated. This is a rare situation you bring up here.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Western theological expression of the apostolic faith differs from the Greek Orthodox theological expressions of the Apostolic faith, although the substance of the Apostolic faith does not differ specifically expressed from the divine economy of salvation and grace revealed from Apostolic succession and the sacrament of holy orders.

The Greek Orthodox may object and place false claims that misinterpret the Western theological expression of the Apostolic Catholic faith. In addition some Greek Orthodox members take it upon themselves to reject to learn and come to the understanding’s of the West’s theological expression that matures in understanding from the divine seed planted by Jesus Christ of the apostolic faith that is expressed in every age from diverse tongues, tribes, nations and peoples.

I pray that the Orthodox never move from her apostolic faith. The problem with the Orthodox, her theological expression and understandings remains stagnant to an ever changing world. While the West has continued the fight of faith to be proclaimed to new peoples, tongues and tribes (cultures, languages) so that these can come to the full understandings and unchanged apostolic faith expressed in a language and understanding so that the apostolic faith never changes in any age, never mind the internal power struggles that have plagued the Church in both East and West.

. There is plenty of blame of Church stealing on both sides. Only reveals the Church militant encompasses true sinners and true saints. This only reveals compatibility not a difference.

I thought our discussion referenced the bishop of Rome being refused communion with some Greek Orthodox Church’s. You raise the question of a lay person. I don’t know all the specifics to your example. Maybe the bishop declared officially the communion of the person in question is no longer Latin and no longer his responsibility?

I find it rare for the Catholic Church to officially excommunicate a lay person, when a lay person does not reach the full deposit of faith and understanding as a priest, bishop would with holy orders. In fact I don’t know of any lay person being excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Although, a Lay person have been known to self excommunicate themselves from the Catholic Church.That said a bishop is free to exercise his authority within his diocese and is not dictated by the bishop of Rome so long as abuse does not take place.

So the question is; did the bishop excommunicate a lay person from his responsibility of the lay person’s soul by His divine authority or did the bishop excommunicate the lay person from the whole Catholic faith? Do you know the internal and external exact specific facts to declare a Catholic bishop excommunicated a lay person?
For a bishop to do such a thing, He will know facts that is usually not exposed to external sources to respect and protect the excommunicated. This is a rare situation you bring up here.

Can a Roman Catholic priest or layperson convert to the Greek Orthodox Church and not be excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No I don’t have anything confused. Pope Francis is the absolute monarch of the state of Vatican City. And prior to the creation of Vatican City the popes were the monarchs of the Papal States. So it’s hardly possible to say that the popes were and are free of secular influence when they themselves are the heads of a state.

Let’s simplify this subject;

A bishop anywhere, specifically the bishop of Rome oversees his diocese from his Cathedral. Does that make the bishop a secular power? NO he remains a prince in the magisterium of the Church under our King and Lord Jesus Christ. Why do you have a bishop of Rome a secular power?

Because the bishop of Rome is no longer under secular powers, does not make him a secular power today.

Does the Bishop of Rome presiding in Peter’s Chair Visible head of Jesus Christ on earth as the Vicar of Christ to all the world? Yes and secular powers acknowledge Peter’s Chair in the Vicar of Christ who operates his tending and feeding of the flock of Jesus Christ independently and free from secular powers and influence.

This is the difference between the Catholic Church in the West from the Greek Orthodox in the East.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Can a Roman Catholic priest or layperson convert to the Greek Orthodox Church and not be excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church?

I can say this much; Vatican II declared Latin’s should not make Greek Catholics Latin and vis; versa.

If ? one by his/her own free will changes his/her Latin rite to a Greek rite without cohersion, should be at liberty to do so.

B]If ? a Roman Catholic lay person will fully changes his rite to Greek, will find himself in the same circumstance of schism not excommunication in the Greek rite. This pertains to the present which is subject to change.
Because the Greek Orthodox themselves are never excommunicated but remain in schism with the authority of Peter’s Chair, thus the lay person should not be excommunicated, but wilfully goes into schism automatically with the authority of Peter’s Chair by his/her new communion.

 

[spina1953]

Hi: It seems to me that the Vatican is a self-govern country, so the Pope is the head of the country. he is also the Bishop of Rome and also the Heard of the CC. They are three distinct titles of the Pope, and so as the head of the country he can decide how the country is ran; as the Bishop of Rome, he is the head of the diocee, and as Pope the head of the CC world-wide. At least that is my understanding of it.

 

[Tomdstone]

Let’s simplify this subject;

A bishop anywhere, specifically the bishop of Rome oversees his diocese from his Cathedral. Does that make the bishop a secular power? NO he remains a prince in the magisterium of the Church under our King and Lord Jesus Christ. Why do you have a bishop of Rome a secular power?

Because the bishop of Rome is no longer under secular powers, does not make him a secular power today.

Does the Bishop of Rome presiding in Peter’s Chair Visible head of Jesus Christ on earth as the Vicar of Christ to all the world? Yes and secular powers acknowledge Peter’s Chair in the Vicar of Christ who operates his tending and feeding of the flock of Jesus Christ independently and free from secular powers and influence.

This is the difference between the Catholic Church in the West from the Greek Orthodox in the East.

Who is the head of the Vatican State?

 

[Duane1966]

Can a Roman Catholic priest or layperson convert to the Greek Orthodox Church and not be excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church?

Can a Greek Orthodox convert to RC and not be excommunicated by the Orthodox?

 

[Seraphim73]

Can a Greek Orthodox convert to RC and not be excommunicated by the Orthodox?

No, that would be the very definition of excommunication.