What is the difference between Catholics and greek orthodox?

[prodromos]

What would happen if the Patriarch of the West approved or disapproved of the final decisions of the council and one or more of the Eastern Patriarchs took the opposite position?

There is no longer a Patriarch of the West. There hasn’t been for almost nine years. I thought you guys paid attention when the Pope made announcements?

 

[prodromos]

I have no clue.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

 

[Randy_Carson]

They have called many councils. It is for the Church to declare later whether or not any of them should be termed “ecumenical”

Oh, right. You can’t really know whether a council is Ecumenical or not for what? a hundred years or so?

But when the OO objected to a Council, everyone else just ignored them; they were either shown the door or found it themselves, right?

So when the EO object to a Council like Florence or Vatican I or Vatican II, shouldn’t the majority just ignore you, too?

Why should your objections to certain councils be any more legitimate than those of the heretics who were tossed out on their ears in the first millennium?

I’m not trying to be argumentative or provocative…I’m just trying to understand what makes your objections to councils any better than those that came before.

Thanks.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Seraphim73;12692324]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.

Politics of course.
While your on the subject of Primacy. The rankings of cities are purely civil and this ranking is never to be confused with primacy or jurisdiction with the Chair of Peter, as some posters in the past mistakenly confused; the difference between the rankings of Church’s on civil matters such as you perfectly indicated “Political”, with ecclesial matters exercised by divine authority such as the council’s proclaim the Bishop of Rome possesses.
Let it be noted here, that the civil primacy of rankings of Church’s which the Patriarch of Constantinople introduced a new and secular ranking to recognize the Patriarch of Constantinople as second to the Bishop of Rome and is never equal or second to the Bishop of Rome on Eccliesial matters or by divine authority, which Jesus gives, not the Emperor’s or the Patriarch’s of Constantinople.

When the same council ruled after it’s proceedings and readings concluded in the official records that the Bishop of Rome is to be recognized as Supreme over all other Church’s given to her by divine authority over all Church’s by Jesus Christ.

After the Patriarch of Constantinople usurped her ranking over Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, when She never existed prior to the latter (Apostolic see’s) listing disproves any Pentarchy ever existed and from these Constantinople civil politics begin our way into many different schisms.

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.

I think it’s funny also how most Orthodox posters give too much credit to the Pope as a superhuman, or supreme being having superhuman powers.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Who is the head of the Vatican State?

Oh, your referencing civil matters as to the Vatican. These civil servants are made by appointment or committee which encompasses a president, vice president etc…

The Pope however is the head of his own state, which the bishop of Rome is free from secular powers and secular influences over His pontificate and free to feed and tend the flock of Jesus Christ.

Vatican city is distinct from the Holy See.

Italy signed a treaty giving complete independence to the bishop of Rome from any and all other secular powers and influences both political and Ecclesial.

Vatican state city is the smallest recognized country in the world by secular powers.

This freedom the Pope’s possess makes his Episcopacy distinct and different from the Greek Orthodox Church’s who remain under secular rule or occupy a secular powers domain.

The Pope has an independent free vote in the secular world without secular hindrances and political influences.

Thus the many political excuses why many protestants left their Catholic roots due to the past political corruption influenced by Kings, Queens and princes no longer exist today in the Catholic Church and can begin to work their way back home.

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

But when the OO objected to a Council, everyone else just ignored them; they were either shown the door or found it themselves, right?
.

Why do you bring up my church in a thread about your church and the Greeks? We didn’t involve in your schism from each other. Also you and the Greeks are agreed about the Chalcedon council? So why do you bring it up? Does your church not agree with that council anymore?

 

[prodromos]

After the Patriarch of Constantinople usurped her ranking over Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem,

Ah, so it is the all important ranking, not authority, which you claim was usurped. Why didn’t you say so in the first place?

 

[Seraphim73]

Politics of course.
While your on the subject of Primacy. The rankings of cities are purely civil and this ranking is never to be confused with primacy or jurisdiction with the Chair of Peter, as some posters in the past mistakenly confused; the difference between the rankings of Church’s on civil matters such as you perfectly indicated “Political”, with ecclesial matters exercised by divine authority such as the council’s proclaim the Bishop of Rome possesses.
Let it be noted here, that the civil primacy of rankings of Church’s which the Patriarch of Constantinople introduced a new and secular ranking to recognize the Patriarch of Constantinople as second to the Bishop of Rome and is never equal or second to the Bishop of Rome on Eccliesial matters or by divine authority, which Jesus gives, not the Emperor’s or the Patriarch’s of Constantinople.

When the same council ruled after it’s proceedings and readings concluded in the official records that the Bishop of Rome is to be recognized as Supreme over all other Church’s given to her by divine authority over all Church’s by Jesus Christ.

After the Patriarch of Constantinople usurped her ranking over Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, when She never existed prior to the latter (Apostolic see’s) listing disproves any Pentarchy ever existed and from these Constantinople civil politics begin our way into many different schisms.

I think it’s funny also how most Orthodox posters give too much credit to the Pope as a superhuman, or supreme being having superhuman powers.

Ok so all the other patriarchates were ranked based on the secular importance of the city but Rome was ranked first by divine decree?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ah, so it is the all important ranking, not authority, which you claim was usurped. Why didn’t you say so in the first place?

Its a give Peter has the Keys in the Bible. I know you heard it all before.

Anyway what I think is the biggest difference is baptism.

Which Councils and Canons do you use for your understanding of sin, grace and baptism?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ah, so it is the all important ranking, not authority, which you claim was usurped. Why didn’t you say so in the first place?

Seraphim introduced the ranking of secular order.

My point to the whole matter of this ranking by the Patriarch of Constantinople begins the political usurpation of civil authority, secular powers supported by his Emperor which starts the path of schism’s resulting from this political usurped power by the Patriarch of Constantinople between the East and the West. The Patriarch of Constantinople never has the power of himself in Ecclesial divine authority and never has the power to usurp a bishop’s divine authority.

For example in the case of the bishop of Rome. The Patriarch of Constantinople along with the support of his Eastern Emperor left the poor bishop of Rome defenseless and without any military protection to assist the bishop of Rome from being invaded and attacked by the Barbarians. In short the civil and secular powerful Patriarch of Constantinople and his Emperor purposely lapsed military support to Rome and left the bishop of Rome at risk of being killed and removed from Rome by the invading barbarians. Yet this history proves Jesus promise to Peter that He will never leave His Church orphan and will always be with her.

This secular political action taken by the Eastern Emperor and his Patriarch of Constantinople left the bishop of Rome no choice, by divine providence converted the barbarians and ordained a converted barbarian king to Catholicism and ordained his royal crown. Which added flames to the defeated power usurping from the Patriarch of Constantinople and his Eastern Emperor.

The Pope today is no longer under neither an Eastern nor a Western secular power to politically circumvent his feeding and tending the flock of Jesus Christ. This is the difference being revealed between the bishop of Rome and the Greek Orthodox church’s.

 

[spina1953]

Seraphim introduced the ranking of secular order.

My point to the whole matter of this ranking by the Patriarch of Constantinople begins the political usurpation of civil authority, secular powers supported by his Emperor which starts the path of schism’s resulting from this political usurped power by the Patriarch of Constantinople between the East and the West. The Patriarch of Constantinople never has the power of himself in Ecclesial divine authority and never has the power to usurp a bishop’s divine authority.

For example in the case of the bishop of Rome. The Patriarch of Constantinople along with the support of his Eastern Emperor left the poor bishop of Rome defenseless and without any military protection to assist the bishop of Rome from being invaded and attacked by the Barbarians. In short the civil and secular powerful Patriarch of Constantinople and his Emperor purposely lapsed military support to Rome and left the bishop of Rome at risk of being killed and removed from Rome by the invading barbarians. Yet this history proves Jesus promise to Peter that He will never leave His Church orphan and will always be with her.

This secular political action taken by the Eastern Emperor and his Patriarch of Constantinople left the bishop of Rome no choice, by divine providence converted the barbarians and ordained a converted barbarian king to Catholicism and ordained his royal crown. Which added flames to the defeated power usurping from the Patriarch of Constantinople and his Eastern Emperor.

The Pope today is no longer under neither an Eastern nor a Western secular power to politically circumvent his feeding and tending the flock of Jesus Christ. This is the difference being revealed between the bishop of Rome and the Greek Orthodox church’s.

Gabriel of 12: Great post and I concur as I understood this from reading history secular as well as Christian history.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Pope today is no longer under neither an Eastern nor a Western secular power to politically circumvent his feeding and tending the flock of Jesus Christ. This is the difference being revealed between the bishop of Rome and the Greek Orthodox church’s.

Austria has the right to exclude a person from consideration to the papacy.
books.google.com/books?id=Was5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=austria+must+confirm+papal+election&source=bl&ots=NxllBXEuSB&sig=jTkfZBxXSCoj50ikYAOkxd-vIFo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-dTGVPCSKZHeoATv4YCgAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=austria%20must%20confirm%20papal%20election&f=false

 

[Seraphim73]

Austria has the right to exclude a person from consideration to the papacy.
books.google.com/books?id=Was5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=austria+must+confirm+papal+election&source=bl&ots=NxllBXEuSB&sig=jTkfZBxXSCoj50ikYAOkxd-vIFo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-dTGVPCSKZHeoATv4YCgAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=austria%20must%20confirm%20papal%20election&f=false

I do have a question. Is the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church influenced by secular powers? What about the head of the Ethiopian or Eritrean Catholic Churches?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Austria has the right to exclude a person from consideration to the papacy.
books.google.com/books?id=Was5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=austria+must+confirm+papal+election&source=bl&ots=NxllBXEuSB&sig=jTkfZBxXSCoj50ikYAOkxd-vIFo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-dTGVPCSKZHeoATv4YCgAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=austria%20must%20confirm%20papal%20election&f=false

I’m not sure your article dating back to 1903 applies to how it is now a day’s?

I believe the context we relate to references a sitting pope today not one being elected.

The article is difficult to read and relates to a time when European Kings concerned themselves with Papal election. In particular Austria’s concern’s or fears of Germany’s Kings and princes in 1903.

If Austria’s laws remain as in 1903 and refuses the freedom rights from one of her Catholic citizens proceeding to the Chair of Peter; are concerns with Austria and her citizens, that does not pertain to a sitting Pope today.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I do have a question. Is the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church influenced by secular powers? What about the head of the Ethiopian or Eritrean Catholic Churches?

Is Ukraine a free society in the West or is Ukraine’s freedom threatened by communists?

Can an Ethiopian bishop place a crucifix or religious icon in Ethiopia’s house of public law today?

 

[Seraphim73]

Is Ukraine a free society in the West or is Ukraine’s freedom threatened by communists?

Can an Ethiopian bishop place a crucifix or religious icon in Ethiopia’s house of public law today?

So then the answer is yes.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So then the answer is yes.

I don’t know:shrug:

If the perspective is viewed religiously the answer can be no?

If the perspective is viewed from a secular, civil view the answer can be yes?

 

[Seraphim73]

I don’t know:shrug:

If the perspective is viewed religiously the answer can be no?

If the perspective is viewed from a secular, civil view the answer can be yes?

Well you are the expert in the supposed political influence in Orthodoxy today. I thought you might have similar knowledge of your own Church.

 

[Seraphim73]

I don’t know:shrug:

If the perspective is viewed religiously the answer can be no?

If the perspective is viewed from a secular, civil view the answer can be yes?

You seem to be an expert in political influence in Orthodoxy. I assumed you would have similar knowledge of your own Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You seem to be an expert in political influence in Orthodoxy. I assumed you would have similar knowledge of your own Church.

Greek Ukraine Orthodox in the west and Ethiopian Catholic politics do not have enough history to gauge them with the present, for anyone to become an expert on an ever changing subject.