What makes Catholicism true compared to Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Peter_J]

That last link is one of the worst articles I have ever come across and should have been removed from this website long ago. Not helpful at all.

I just try to avoid stuff like that.

 

[exnihilo]

As is your right. I, for one, really can’t complain about your statement since I often find RRCs (Roman-Rite Catholics) a bit strange.

I think you misunderstand as I didn’t express myself well. I don’t find Orthodoxy strange.

 

[Vaseljen]

The time has come for reconciliation. There are some serious threats against Christianity, Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans should return to unity. Between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, they should:

• the Orthodox should abide by the Council of Florence document and accept Papal primacy
• the Roman Catholics should relent their position on the Filioque: frankly, even though I am Catholic, I believe that the Orthodox have it right on this matter.
  Time to stop quarreling and face the challenges of the time.

(my 2c)

I must tell you that Orthodox really hate the Council of Florence, so you try something out with the new one, or forget about the Orthodox accepting Florence.

 

[PJM]

=tomspitzley3;13476749]Hello so I have had this question for awhile now, and recently debating an Eastern Orthodox made me requestion this. Obviously the Catholic Church is true compared to Protestantism, and we both agreed upon this. How do we know it is true compared to Eastern Orthodoxy? Both were almost indistinguishable and many still see no difference. How do we know the Roman Catholic Church is true?

Three things THINGS:

I LOVE:heartur Eastern Brethren!

1. Truth is singular per defined issue. It can be nothing else
2. Only Peter [Roman Catholicism] was given thee KEY to heavens access. Mt. 16: 18-19
3. The Great Easter SCHISM [separation from Catholicism] historically and factually have the East separating from the West [Rome], NOT the other way around:blush:

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Peter_J]

I think you misunderstand as I didn’t express myself well. I don’t find Orthodoxy strange.

Thank you for that. What did I “misunderstand” about it?

 

[Peter_J]

I must tell you that Orthodox really hate the Council of Florence, so you try something out with the new one, or forget about the Orthodox accepting Florence.

I see ecumenism as a process.

Consider: in the mid sixteenth century, eight earlier council were added en masse to the Latin list of ecumenical councils – and even today you can still find them on lists. Compared with that, it is relatively minor thing for Catholics to insist on the Council of Florence.

 

[prodromos]

Three things THINGS:

I LOVE:heartur Eastern Brethren!

1. Truth is singular per defined issue. It can be nothing else
2. Only Peter [Roman Catholicism] was given thee KEY to heavens access. Mt. 16: 18-19

Church fathers state that “Binding and loosing” is the keys.

1. The Great Easter SCHISM [separation from Catholicism] historically and factually have the East separating from the West [Rome], NOT the other way around:blush:

Actually, no. It was Cardinal Humbert who initiated the separation with a litany of false claims and Rome’s subsequent recognition of the bull of excommunication he produced. The council in Constantinople only excommunicated Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine and Peter of Amalfi. The fact that Frederick was later crowned as Pope while still excommunicated would have only cemented Rome’s separation from the Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

Vaselgen…your comments really come across as very biased and not in the Holy Spirit…and I forgot to help you recall that the pope of the ransacking crusaders in Constantinople had them all excommunicated when they came back.

There is such a thing as the Gospels and how we are to forgive our brethren…and yes I see likewise the errors of the Eastern positions as well now.

The Council of Florence was a last ditch effort to save the Church from the subsequent fragmentation of Christianity.

Do you live in the USA?..that is my other question. You should walk down any American street and see all the different Christian churches around. Christianity is the biggest voting block in America and it is totally worthless.

Infallibility is where the pope looks at the faith of the people. He prays and then considers a pronouncement or dogma. But first he must consult with all the bishops and if they all agree then he can make a dogma…Mary the Immaculate Conception, Mary conceived without sin,a belief Christians have held since the beginning.

If you put your emotions aside, the pope is not at all acting like a big boss telling every body what to think and do.

The First Vatican Council stressed that the pope and bishops are to be Servants of God.

 

[ericc]

They were all short lived, hardly lasting beyond the lifetimes of those bishops, whereas the Catholic Church has persisted in her error of Supreme Universal Papal Jurisdiction for many centuries now, taking all her bishops, clergy, monastics and laity with her.

When was Supreme Universal Papal Jurisdiction deemed an error? By who? On whose authority?

Short lived? Throughout the centuries? Arianism lasted for centuries in one modified form or another.

 

[ericc]

You do realize that some popes have endorsed heresy right? You might be able to argue that it was never ex cathedra, and that’s fine. I’m not interested in arguing that. However, they were still condemned as heretics by the ecumenical councils.

Can you give examples of heresy endorsement? Did they actually taught heresy knowingly or were just incompetent or incapable to spot/know it? I do know some were depicted morally inadequate.

 

[KathleenGee]

You have good background and hope you can continue on Orthodox threads more.

I am praying and trying to get to vespers at a local Greek Orthodox church. Introduced myself to the pastor and he also is working for reunification.

I read an article explaining differences between Orthodox and Latin in bullet form. Wish I had kept it.

 

[KathleenGee]

If the Council of Florence had been successful, we would not see the tremendous fragmentation and disunity within Christianity caused by so many who want to be the boss and final voice.

That is the work of the flesh.

Having the papacy calls us to live more in faith. If we have conciliar models…this was tried out at the beginning of Christianity and did not work well…then we are really in control. We flip a dice and decide, well today do I want to follow this leader or that leader…whoever suits my fancy.

This is what happens to Christianity when we do not have one single person as head to avoid arbitrating God’s lawful authority.

 

[Vaseljen]

If the Council of Florence had been successful, we would not see the tremendous fragmentation and disunity within Christianity caused by so many who want to be the boss and final voice.

That is the work of the flesh.

Having the papacy calls us to live more in faith. If we have conciliar models…this was tried out at the beginning of Christianity and did not work well…then we are really in control. We flip a dice and decide, well today do I want to follow this leader or that leader…whoever suits my fancy.

This is what happens to Christianity when we do not have one single person as head to avoid arbitrating God’s lawful authority.

So you want unity with the Orthodox Church and you want to have papacy in place. How do you plan to do that?

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I have no dog in this fight. I really don’t care to be quite frank.
But you gotta wonder about a ‘new poster’ with eighty plus (and counting) posts in just a few days.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Hello so I have had this question for awhile now, and recently debating an Eastern Orthodox made me requestion this. Obviously the Catholic Church is true compared to Protestantism, and we both agreed upon this. How do we know it is true compared to Eastern Orthodoxy? Both were almost indistinguishable and many still see no difference. How do we know the Roman Catholic Church is true?

I agree with those who say they are both true.

Sad to say I can see both sides of the papal supremacy dispute. I understand what the Orthodox want and feel that, in the context of history, there is a fair amount of justice to the demand. (This issue of course also affects our relations with Lutherans, Anglicans, other more further removed Protestant denominations.) But equally - and this is important, equally- I see the complete absurdity and impossibility of the RCC redefining the papacy at this point in time. The Pope of today is not what the Pope was during the Holy Roman Empire or the Renaissance. He plays a much less domineering, politically charged role; he is now a genuinely vital and influential leader for the Christian faith on the world stage. Many non Catholics greatly admire and respect many recent popes as men of God with whom they have doctrinal differences but with whom they share much as Christians. He is closer to an ally to many non Catholic Christians. Times and circumstances have changed. This is progress.

I sometimes fear that formal efforts to force unity, agreements on an ecumenical level can be as harmful as helpful - they bring out resentments and differences. That said, I believe that they are necessary exercises in Christian unity. (kind of like going to the dentist - you do get good out of discomfort, sometimes even pain) We should pray and work for unity, grow ever closer to our separated brethren in love. But not overturn the apple cart - let the Holy Spirit take the lead on “official” unification - as I noted so very much has already been given us by the Spirit in this regard that we often don’t even see or appreciate.

 

[Vaseljen]

I have no dog in this fight. I really don’t care to be quite frank.
But you gotta wonder about a ‘new poster’ with eighty plus (and counting) posts in just a few days.

Maybe i just don’t have life?

 

[KnitNut]

I agree with those who say they are both true.

Sad to say I can see both sides of the papal supremacy dispute. I understand what the Orthodox want and feel that, in the context of history, there is a fair amount of justice to the demand. (This issue of course also affects our relations with Lutherans, Anglicans, other more further removed Protestant denominations.) But equally - and this is important, equally- I see the complete absurdity and impossibility of the RCC redefining the papacy at this point in time. The Pope of today is not what the Pope was during the Holy Roman Empire or the Renaissance. He plays a much less domineering, politically charged role; he is now a genuinely vital and influential leader for the Christian faith on the world stage. Many non Catholics greatly admire and respect many recent popes as men of God with whom they have doctrinal differences but with whom they share much as Christians. He is closer to an ally to many non Catholic Christians. Times and circumstances have changed. This is progress.

I sometimes fear that formal efforts to force unity, agreements on an ecumenical level can be as harmful as helpful - they bring out resentments and differences. That said, I believe that they are necessary exercises in Christian unity. (kind of like going to the dentist - you do get good out of discomfort, sometimes even pain) We should pray and work for unity, grow ever closer to our separated brethren in love. But not overturn the apple cart - let the Holy Spirit take the lead on “official” unification - as I noted so very much has already been given us by the Spirit in this regard that we often don’t even see or appreciate.

So, to summarize: Orthodoxy is the Truth because Orthodoxy is the Truth. And Catholicism is that “other” Truth…because they’ve painted themselves into a corner such that their mess of innovations can’t be undone because of the absurdity (more like internal scandal) in doing so? (The “impossibility” part is merely themselves declaring that they can’t undo it. See also, absurdity.) I’m sorry, it doesn’t matter how much of a “nice guy” any individual RC pope may be…what matters is the underlying truth that there is no such animal as an infallible pope with supreme universal jurisdiction.

Yes, let us work together toward a common purpose, like serving the needy. But as far as deviating from Truth to accept the incorrect RC position merely because the RCs choose to believe they’ve made it impossible to undo…no. I don’t say this with any animosity, merely speaking very plainly about the actual issue, which exists outside any feel-good “come together” discussions of ecumenism.

 

[Art321]

So, to summarize: Orthodoxy is the Truth because Orthodoxy is the Truth. And Catholicism is that “other” Truth…because they’ve painted themselves into a corner such that their mess of innovations can’t be undone because of the absurdity (more like internal scandal) in doing so? (The “impossibility” part is merely themselves declaring that they can’t undo it. See also, absurdity.) I’m sorry, it doesn’t matter how much of a “nice guy” any individual RC pope may be…what matters is the underlying truth that there is no such animal as an infallible pope with supreme universal jurisdiction.

Yes, let us work together toward a common purpose, like serving the needy. But as far as deviating from Truth to accept the incorrect RC position merely because the RCs choose to believe they’ve made it impossible to undo…no. I don’t say this with any animosity, merely speaking very plainly about the actual issue, which exists outside any feel-good “come together” discussions of ecumenism.

Ok, maybe I’ll ask the question. In our Eastern Brethren’s view, how do you define papal supremacy??

I seem to seeing that even the definition is radically different from the Latins and the Christians of the East.

 

[FollowChrist34]

So, to summarize: Orthodoxy is the Truth because Orthodoxy is the Truth. And Catholicism is that “other” Truth…because they’ve painted themselves into a corner such that their mess of innovations can’t be undone because of the absurdity (more like internal scandal) in doing so? (The “impossibility” part is merely themselves declaring that they can’t undo it. See also, absurdity.) I’m sorry, it doesn’t matter how much of a “nice guy” any individual RC pope may be…what matters is the underlying truth that there is no such animal as an infallible pope with supreme universal jurisdiction.

Yes, let us work together toward a common purpose, like serving the needy. But as far as deviating from Truth to accept the incorrect RC position merely because the RCs choose to believe they’ve made it impossible to undo…no. I don’t say this with any animosity, merely speaking very plainly about the actual issue, which exists outside any feel-good “come together” discussions of ecumenism.

Point taken, however, just for a little balance here on the thread - after all, a little ecumenical drivel never hurt anyone.

Francis and Bartholomew issue resounding, historic calls for church reunification

Bartholomew called the process for reunification of the two churches – started by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras with a meeting in Jerusalem 50 years ago – “irreversible” and said the two communities have no option but to join together.

“We no longer have the luxury of isolated action,” said Bartholomew. “The modern persecutors of Christians do not ask which church their victims belong to. The unity that concerns us is regrettably already occurring in certain regions of the world through the blood of martyrdom.”

The addresses by Bartholomew and Francis came on the last day of the pope’s stay in Turkey, which the pontiff has been visiting since Friday. They spoke to one another at the patriarchal church of St. George, where Bartholomew and the ecumenical patriarchate are centered.

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, which together are estimated to have some 2 billion adherents, have been separated since the year 1054. Serious efforts for reconciliation between the traditions did not start until the 1964 meeting of Paul and Athenagoras, which eventually led to the opening of joint theological dialogues on reunification in 1980.

Francis and Bartholomew also issued a joint declaration following the liturgy Sunday, pledging “to intensify our efforts to promote the full unity of all Christians, and above all Catholics and Orthodox.”

But the strongest words of the day came in the leaders’ earlier speeches to one another, in which they both stressed the similarities between their persons and the focus of their communities and made poetic and serious commitments to seeking unity.

**Saying that as a result of the Paul and Athenagoras meeting “the flow of history has literally changed direction,” Bartholomew said until then “cold love” between the churches had been rekindled and their desire to reunify “galvanized.”

“Thenceforth, the road to Emmaus has opened up before us – a road that, while perhaps lengthy and sometimes even rugged, is nonetheless irreversible,” said the patriarch.**

**Asking a series of rhetorical questions, Bartholomew then seemed to pick up on a key phrase of Francis’ papacy so far, that the church “cannot be self-centered, revolving around itself.”

“What is the benefit of boasting for what we have received unless these translate into life for humanity and our world both today and tomorrow?” asked Bartholomew. The church, he said, "is called to keep its sight fixed not so much on yesterday as on today and tomorrow.

“The church exists not for itself, but for the world and for humanity,” he continued.**

ncronline.org/news/global/francis-and-bartholomew-issue-resounding-historic-calls-church-reunification

The key I think is not to confuse retaining doctrinal integrity with plaque.
View attachment 22645

 

[Art321]

Point taken, however, just for a little balance here on the thread - after all, a little ecumenical drivel never hurt anyone.

ncronline.org/news/global/francis-and-bartholomew-issue-resounding-historic-calls-church-reunification

The key I think is not to confuse retaining doctrinal integrity with plaque.
View attachment 22645

Thanks for the article. I enjoyed it.