Hello Sidheil; It is incorrect to try and seperate the Eastern Orthodox from the Western Catholic church as being two seperate “invented” church’s, when they both maintian apostolic succession, valid holy orders, valid sacraments. The “tear” =schism that exists between “some” Orthodox communities who refuse communion to the Pope. This does not constitute a total seperation of Church’s, but a protest towards “authority”. These two remain in the body of Christ which is one. The Orthodox Church’s are more close to the Roman Catholic church than any protestant faith which seperated itself from the Pope and the Catholic faith.
As far as authority is concern; The Pope has historical support, biblical support, Apostolic Tradition support. A “Patriarch” is an ecclessiasitcal office. The Pope, bishops, priests and deacons are the only “Divine” instituted offices.
There are Eastern Orthodox Church’s that are in full communion with the Pope, some of them never left communion with the Pope since the apostles.
History records that “all” the Eastern Patriarchs in one way or another have fallen into heresie, today many of these Eastern Patriarchs remain in heresy, confirmed by the councils of Chalcedon 451 a.d, 431 a.d council which defeated the Nestorians, then again the 2nd Ecumenical council which defeated the “Iconoclast”, these church’s found in heresy seperated themselves from their other Eastern Orthodox Church’s who remained in full communion with the Pope.
In fact the see of Rome in the Pope is the only bishop that never taught heresy. The dead pope Honorius was declared a heretic 40 years after his death, but he never taught heresy, but it was proven through communication with his friends from the Eastern Church’s via letters, implied Honorius had heretical leanings, thus 40 years after his death, later Popes and councils labeled him a heretic, so as to refute the Eastern heretics who were using the 40 year old pope to support their heretical teachings, but they lost the battle in council and got excommunicated along with the letters from Honorius and others who supported these Eastern Church heretics.
There are cultural, language differences and authoritative structure. The Pope united with all the bishops world wide can refute heresies and defend the apostolic teachings against secular influences and new wind of doctrines that conflict with the apostolic revelations with its Magisterium. The Orthodox because of their “autocephalous” =independent status do not have magisterial teachings because they have no head, all of these remain independent from one another.
The Patriarch of Constantinople usurped the authority from the patriarchs from Antioch, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem this has a long history of political circumstances which the Patriarch of Constantinople gained powerful political influence from her Emperors.
Today it is incorrect to apply the magesterium united to the Pope, to be the same as the Orthodox Church’s united to the Patriarch of Constantinople this does not exist in Orthodxy. The Orthodox Churchs’ are independent from one another, some not in communion with one another as described above, these do not have a united magisterium head, so long as they refuse communion with Peter’s Chair in the Popes.
Beware of the negative (opinion) views that attack the Popes or Catholic teachings, and learn exactly the Catholic position before drawing a conclusion, you will find in doing so, not all that you heard about Catholicism is simply not the position of the Catholic Church, but a misunderstood opinion.
Peace be with you
I recently came to the conclusion that I cannot be a Protestant. Too many things just don’t make any sense. So my question is, why Catholicism? I’ve been doing research, on both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Both claim to be the “one true Church”, and both have decent support for the claim. Ditto for theology, there are differences, but both churches have credible arguments to back it up. However, I know that only one can be true. So I’m back to my question, why Catholocism?
