Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Silyosha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sdtouchton said:
A comparison between Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body. They are one and cannot be separated.
What happened to the One also happens to the other.

Jesus Christ persecuted…His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church persecuted…
They rebelled against His Authority…They rebel against its Authority. 2Peter 2:10
They said Crucify Him…They have tried to destroy it for 2000 years.
He is called Beelzebub…It is run by Satan. Matthew 10:25.
He is a false messiah…It is a false church. Luke 22:70-71
He called Himself the Son of GOD…It claims it was founded by GOD, Matthew 16:18.
He called Himself Truth…It claims to be infallible, 1Timothy 3:15.
He called Himself King…It says it is the only true Church, Matthew 16:18.
He could not sin…It has no spot or wrinkle, Ephesians 5:27.
He was not be believed by many…It is not believed by many. Luke 22:67
He was denied by many…It is denied by many. Luke 22:57-60
Not understanding Him, they walked away…Not understanding it, they walk away. John 6:66
He had false accusers…It has false accusers. Mark 14:56-59
He was mocked…It is mocked. Luke 23:35-37
He was scandalized…It is scandalized. Luke 17:1-2
He was hated without a cause…It is hated without a cause. John 15:18-25
His accuser, Judas, died…Its accusers die, but still, the Church lives on.
His enemies would stumble and fall…Its enemies stumble and fall. John 18:6
We have no king but Caesar…We have no need of it, as we have the Bible.
Can anything good come out of Nazareth?..Can anything good come from Rome? John 1:46
They cried out, “Not this one but Barabbas”…It is also rejected by the world. John 15:18-25
He bore His Cross…It bears a cross also, the cross of persecution.
He died on the Cross…It has thousands of martyrs, many on crosses.

1970 years later, He lives, stronger than ever…1970 years later, it lives, stronger than ever.

However, no matter how hard the persecutors try…
His Kingdom will last forever, Daniel 7:14, Hebrews 1:8.
His Church will last until the end of the world as promised by Him in Matthew 28:20.
“BEHOLD, I HAVE GIVEN YOU POWER TO TREAD UPON SERPENTS AND SCORPIONS, AND OVER ALL THE MIGHT OF THE ENEMY; AND NOTHING SHALL HURT YOU.”
Luke 10:19

“Do not be a stumbling block to Jews and Greeks AND TO THE CHURCH OF GOD”
1Corinthians 10:32
Anyone who persecutes the Catholic Church has made himself/herself a stumbling block to the Church of GOD. It is a clear violation of Holy Scripture.

“For I am the least of the Apostles, and I AM NOT WORTHY TO BE CALLED AN APOSTLE, BECAUSE I PERSECUTED THE CHURCH OF GOD.” 1Corinthians 15:9

“Do not be surprised, brethren, IF THE WORLD HATES YOU.” 1John 3:13

“IF THE WORLD HATES YOU, KNOW THAT IT HATED ME BEFORE YOU.
IF YOU WERE OF THE WORLD, THE WORLD WOULD LOVE ITS OWN. BUT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT OF THE WORLD, BUT I HAVE CHOSEN YOU OUT OF THE WORLD, THEREFORE THE WORLD HATES YOU.
REMEMBER THE WORD THAT I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU: NO SERVANT IS GREATER THAN HIS MASTER. IF THEY HAVE PERSECUTED ME, THEY WILL PERSECUTE YOU ALSO; IF THEY HAVE KEPT MY WORD, THEY WILL KEEP YOURS ALSO.
BUT ALL OF THESE THINGS THEY WILL DO TO YOU FOR MY NAME’S SAKE, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT KNOW HIM WHO SENT ME.
IF I HAD NOT COME AND SPOKEN TO THEM, THEY WOULD HAVE NO SIN. BUT NOW THEY HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR THEIR SIN. HE WHO HATES ME HATES MY FATHER ALSO. IF I HAD NOT DONE AMONG THEM WORKS SUCH AS NO ONE ELSE HAS DONE, THEY WOULD HAVE NO SIN. BUT NOW THEY HAVE SEEN, AND HAVE HATED BOTH ME AND MY FATHER;
BUT THAT THE WORD WRITTEN IN THEIR LAW MAY BE FULFILLED, ‘THEY HAVE HATED ME WITHOUT CAUSE’, (Psalms 35:19)”.
John 15:18-25
I would say that Jesus Christ said it all in these verses written with the inspired pen of Saint John wouldn’t you?

Name another Church which is attacked so much on a daily basis as is the Catholic Church?
Jesus Christ warned us, “You will be HATED BY ALL NATIONS for My Name’s sake.”
Matthew 24:9

“Blessed are you when men reproach you, and persecute you, and speaking falsely, say all manner of evil against you, for My sake. REJOICE AND EXULT, BECAUSE YOUR REWARD IS GREAT IN HEAVEN; for so did they persecute the prophets who were before you.” Matthew 5:11-12
Click to expand...
Welcome to the Eastern Catholic area of the Forums.
Writing in capital letters is considered yelling. May I ask you to not yell here? It might be possible to know what you intended to say here if you write in a normal tone of voice. Thank you.
 
It is my understanding that both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church each believe they have the direct succession from St. Peter. It is my understanding that we were ONE Church at some point in time and during a certain Pope’s reign, there was a schism. So my question would be, is this accurate, and if so, during which Pope’s reign did this happen?
 
italiangrl said:
It is my understanding that both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church each believe they have the direct succession from St. Peter. It is my understanding that we were ONE Church at some point in time and during a certain Pope’s reign, there was a schism. So my question would be, is this accurate, and if so, during which Pope’s reign did this happen?
Click to expand...
Hi! I am a Greek Orthodox christian and I will like to comment on your inquiry. The Eastern Orthodox do not claim succession from St.Peter. The Pope has that Chair. So the Roman Catholic Church do have a apostolic founder, St.Peter. However the Orthodox live in the East and to put it simply we are the successors of the other 11 apostles. The whole of the East both Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics including all other Eastern Churches can trace their origins to one of the other 11 apostles. That is why we are a family of Churches. Our apostlolic origins were the other 11. The Apostolic College is still around with the Pope in Rome and the Eastern Bishops in the East. The Church is One containing both East and West. ( Orthodox and Catholic ) The so called schism was not really a schism at all. You cannot divide Christ’s Church. What happened almost 1000 years ago was unfortunate. For me it was only a big arguement a very heated arguement or what we will call a big fight. You ever had a big fight in your family you know what I mean. But in this case multiply it about 1000x and that is why today Orthodox and Catholics hardly know each other. I hope dialogue and common faith will turn things around. I hope this answers some of your inquiry. Let me know if you need more info. I will be happy to discuss with you any other inquiries. Dialogue is the best way to get to know each other. God Bless You! and thank you for your inquiry. I hope I have been some help.
 
Of the 16 various Canonically Orthodox Jurisdictions, we actually do have one that has direct Succession from St. Peter, that is the Patriarchate of Antioch.

The other Orthodox Patriarchs and Churches have their roots in the other Apostles.

For example, our Greek Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, has it’s Apostolic Succession from St. Andrew, St. Peter’s brother.
DavidKays said:
Hi! I am a Greek Orthodox christian and I will like to comment on your inquiry. The Eastern Orthodox do not claim succession from St.Peter. The Pope has that Chair. So the Roman Catholic Church do have a apostolic founder, St.Peter. However the Orthodox live in the East and to put it simply we are the successors of the other 11 apostles. The whole of the East both Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics including all other Eastern Churches can trace their origins to one of the other 11 apostles. That is why we are a family of Churches. Our apostlolic origins were the other 11. The Apostolic College is still around with the Pope in Rome and the Eastern Bishops in the East. The Church is One containing both East and West. ( Orthodox and Catholic ) The so called schism was not really a schism at all. You cannot divide Christ’s Church. What happened almost 1000 years ago was unfortunate. For me it was only a big arguement a very heated arguement or what we will call a big fight. You ever had a big fight in your family you know what I mean. But in this case multiply it about 1000x and that is why today Orthodox and Catholics hardly know each other. I hope dialogue and common faith will turn things around. I hope this answers some of your inquiry. Let me know if you need more info. I will be happy to discuss with you any other inquiries. Dialogue is the best way to get to know each other. God Bless You! and thank you for your inquiry. I hope I have been some help.
Click to expand...
 
SingleMomMonica said:
Of the 16 various Canonically Orthodox Jurisdictions, we actually do have one that has direct Succession from St. Peter, that is the Patriarchate of Antioch.

The other Orthodox Patriarchs and Churches have their roots in the other Apostles.

For example, our Greek Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, has it’s Apostolic Succession from St. Andrew, St. Peter’s brother.
Click to expand...
I am curious as to how the Patriarch of Moscow traces his roots to the Apostles.
 
SingleMomMonica said:
Of the 16 various Canonically Orthodox Jurisdictions, we actually do have one that has direct Succession from St. Peter, that is the Patriarchate of Antioch.

The other Orthodox Patriarchs and Churches have their roots in the other Apostles.

For example, our Greek Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, has it’s Apostolic Succession from St. Andrew, St. Peter’s brother.
Click to expand...
How can that be true? If the Antiochene Patriarchate of the EO obtained its succession from St. Peter still, then it would be of the Syriac Tradition. But it’s not. The Petrine Succession was broken, and the current succession of the EO Antiochene Church is from Constantinople. Similarly with Alexandria. The EO succession at Alexandria is not form the Petrine succession of St. Mark, but, once again, from Constantinople.

That’s just being real. No one is denying that the EOC has apostolic succession, but to claim that it has any claim to the Petrine succession is not grounded in reality.

Only the CC and the OOC have any legitimate claim to the Petrine succession, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
SingleMomMonica said:
Of the 16 various Canonically Orthodox Jurisdictions, we actually do have one that has direct Succession from St. Peter, that is the Patriarchate of Antioch.

The other Orthodox Patriarchs and Churches have their roots in the other Apostles.

For example, our Greek Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, has it’s Apostolic Succession from St. Andrew, St. Peter’s brother.
Click to expand...
Yes you are correct. The orthodox church I attend is Anthiochian however I did not bring it up because the inquirerer was referering to the whole Orthodox Church and the Anthiochian Church is small in comparison to the whole Orthodox Church. St.Peter was considered its first Bishop however I did not think it was important enough because the other parts of the Eastern Church had many Apostolic Origins. The Russian Church which has its origins from the see of Constantinople is the largest at about 170 million and the see of Antioch even though has contributed much and has within herself countless Saints really did not merit to mention. As you said earlier even though St.Peter contributed in finding the Church in Antioch his contribution to the East remains there and I was thinking more of his role as Bishop of Rome which in my opinion is his greatest contribution. The See in Anthioch is important for us but other Sees had other beginnings. Peter’s role in the East is not as important as his role in the West. The Catholic Church owes alot to its founder St.Peter however to the Orthodox his role is not as important though yes it is to the See of Anthioch. But thank you for bringing it up. It helps to understand better the East. God Bless!
 
Any “Petrine succession” to be valid now (faithful to Christ) should recognise the primacy and infallibility in faith and morals of Christ’s Vicar in teaching, sanctifying and governing.
 
Mickey said:
I just love it when someone posts uncharitable comments and then calls it their “humble” opinion. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Reality is not uncharitable. Get over it, brother.

The Patriarchate of Antioch: Founded by Saints Peter and Paul.
antiochian.org/patofant
Click to expand...

No one here denied the foundation. But it’s Petrine succession did not continue. Don’t try to pretend that is an insult. That is just reality. As stated, no one is denying the Petrine foundation, nor that it has apostolic succession. However, that succession today does not derive from its original Petrine establishment, but from Constantinople.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Reality is not uncharitable. Get over it, brother.

No one here denied the foundation. But it’s Petrine succession did not continue. Don’t try to pretend that is an insult. That is just reality. As stated, no one is denying the Petrine foundation, nor that it has apostolic succession. However, that succession today does not derive from its original Petrine establishment, but from Constantinople.
Click to expand...
Very well said. 👍
 
The Holy Father, the Pope, is known as the Vicar of Christ, with primacy, and infallibility in teaching faith and morals.

Jesus of Nazareth gave four promises to Peter alone:

“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)

“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)

“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Jesus mandates all eleven apostles: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
 
Dear brother Abu,
Abu said:
The Holy Father, the Pope, is known as the Vicar of Christ, with primacy, and infallibility in teaching faith and morals.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you already know, but the teaching that all bishops are vicars of Christ has been around since before the 20th century, and was set in stone by Vatican 2 as a teaching of the Catholic Church. Of course, there is no denying that the Pope of Rome is the Vicar of Christ in a unique sense.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Mickey said:
I just love it when someone posts uncharitable comments and then calls it their “humble” opinion. :rolleyes:

The Patriarchate of Antioch: Founded by Saints Peter and Paul.
antiochian.org/patofant
Click to expand...
Except, Mickey, his opinion in this case is based in historical fact; The Patriarchate of Antioch was filled by a Contanopolitan Candidate; it’s succession is clearly apostolic, but no longer direct to Peter. Essentially, the Byzantines deprecated the extant see, and created a new one out of it.
 
In reference to the question of Papal Authority, it is pertinent to point out that the Orthodox Churches admit the Bishop of Rome to primacy of honour, but not of authority.

Also, regarding the Petrine Sees (those founded by Peter), we must also include Alexandria and Antioch, as well as Rome. Indeed, it is foolish to think the reason for Rome having primacy is because it was founded by Peter (when both Antioch and Alexandria also were).

Essentially, the division between the Roman Church and the Orthodox was political and geographical. It is purely accident of country of birth whether you are one or the other. Both have equal legitimacy in every sense
 
Since “legitimacy” means “lawfulness by virtue of being authorized”, it is hardly reasonable to assume that the Orthodox Church has the same legitimacy as the Catholic Church in the mind of Christ, who gave His authority to Peter and his successors to teach, sanctify and rule, and whose supreme authority has been shown in the NT, if Peter’s authority is not recognised.

It is not only respect but obedience that is required. We see the distinction is those Catholic bishops who are lax or who actually dissent (relatively few) from the Church’s teaching.
 
Even though the Roman pontiff is clearly given primacy of honor by the Orthodox, were the two to be “formally” reunited I do not think Rome would relate to the other four Patriarchates the way if relates to the rest of the Catholic Church throughout the world. I could be wrong, but the Pope’s supremacy–down to approving and making bishops, archbishops, etc.–would seem to be universal and enforceable everywhere else as he is the historic Patriarch of the West. I do not know of the pontiff exercising such juridical authority in the East before 1054. I should think Rome might revert back to taking action against a perceived heretical group or bishop(s) when asked to intervene by one of the other ancient Sees–assuming the person(s) in question fell under one of the other four Patriarchates in the first place. Can anyone shed light on this? Thank you.
 
Abu said:
Since “legitimacy” means “lawfulness by virtue of being authorized”, it is hardly reasonable to assume that the Orthodox Church has the same legitimacy as the Catholic Church in the mind of Christ, who gave His authority to Peter and his successors to teach, sanctify and rule, and whose supreme authority has been shown in the NT, if Peter’s authority is not recognised.

It is not only respect but obedience that is required. We see the distinction is those Catholic bishops who are lax or who actually dissent (relatively few) from the Church’s teaching.
Click to expand...
But who are the successors of Peter? Historically, at the very least, the Patriarchs of Rome, of Alexandria and of Antioch!!

Where does the Gospel mention the “successors of Peter”? What are your historical grounds for thinking that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter? If it is that Peter founded the See of Rome, he also founded others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top