Eastern Catholics defending Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholics

The specific heretical group of Christians with which Mohammad had contact has been identified by his descriptions (more accurately, misdescriptions) of Christian belief.

mohamadism, mormonism, and JWs are variations of the arian heresy.



Technically, yes…


Don’t tell that to the UGCC! Our Major Archbishop Sviatoslav is commemorated as “Patriarch” in our parish yet he is commemorated at our cathedral in Philadelphia as “Major Archbishop”. Finally, in official UGCC publications he is usually referred to as “Patriarch” unless there’s a Vatican article which refers to him as “Major Archbishop”.

It’s very confusing!!!


Isn’t Vatican kind of hesitant to give that title to the UGCC? Due to the majority Orthodox Church in Ukraine and how they might perceive a Patriarch title on an EC Church being bestowed by Rome.

Btw, many traditionalists within the SyroMalabar Church look up to the UGCC as a model.


This deacon always commemorates “our most blessed Patriarch Sviatoslava . . . “

Just sayin’.

In a previous translation one version read (in the next prayer) “for our Divinely-appointed emperor . . . “

I’ve thought of amending it slightly someday to see how the faithful would react if I chanted, “for our Divinely-appointed President, Donald . . . “

Fr. Deacon Christopher

1 Like

This is not unprecedented. Baselios Cardinal Cleemis of the Syro-Malankara Church is the Major Archbishop and a Cardinal-Bishop. However, his church has conferred the title “Catholicos” even though it does not appear that the Holy See has authorized or accepted this. He is not listed as such in the Annuario Pontificio. Other Indian Orthodox Churches protest this situation. But it is what it is.

1 Like

Oh WOW!!!:clap::clap::clap::clap: :us: :ukraine:

From your orar to Heaven!

1 Like

Eastern Catholic Churches have authority to venerate their own Saints. Of course they should not be anti-Catholic in essence (Mark of Ephesus for example).

This is incorrect understanding of East as well. Pope is Primus, Infallible and can intervene in affairs of East as he sees fit. But he is not direct superior of Patriarchs. Pope is head of Latin Church. Imagine Eastern Patriarch being Latin Catholic- how would that be viewed?

Technically while Pope could be Eastern Catholic in theory it would still make him head of Latin Church and would bring some complications. I don’t think Orthodox would like that either.

Honestly whole point of this is to not anger Russians. We don’t recognize Ukrainian Catholics as Patriarchs so that those in Schism won’t be angry. What’s next, not recognizing our Archbishops to not anger evangelical Christians? To me and by virtue of tradition, Ukrainian Church should have Patriarch.

When it comes to some smaller Churches such as Slovak Greek Catholic Church they aren’t Patriarchate nor should they be one. Since they are not under any Patriarch, while self-governing, they are “under” Rome.

1 Like

You know how I’m going to respond . . .

Not “under”, but “in communion with.”

The UGCC has decided he is a patriarch. The Vatican hasn’t consented. So it depends upon who is writing.

The only reason the vatican doesn’t acknowledge him as patriarch is to not offend the ROC . . .

These will come to a head when their successors are chosen.

Major Archepiscopal churches appoint subject to papal ratification, while patriarchs simply inform him of their election with a request for communion. This hasn’t happened yet for either . . . (it will be intreresting to watch . . .)


Does this mean that Zoghby does not agree with Vatican I ?

1 Like

During covid 19 I had occasion to view some traditional Lutheran liturgies and traditional Anglican liturgies online. They were very respectful and not all that different from the Roman Catholic Mass. Why is there not success in reunion with traditional Lutherans or traditional Anglicans? Well, Catholics declare that the holy communion of the traditional Lutheran or traditional Anglican service is just plain bread and plain wine. Is that not an insult to degrade their religion like that?

Yes, it has strained relationship with the Malankara Orthodox Church (aka Indian Orthodox Church - IOC) - which is a part of OO communion. As the IOC head also has the Catholicos title.

1 Like

Yeah the IOC makes a fuzz about everything cause they believe the term “Catholicos of the East” is a term they “own” even tho the original term was used and still is used by the ACoE

1 Like

It’s also what Orthodox would claim of any non-orthodox (or sometimes catholics are excluded). It isn’t an insult but our sincere belief. In order to think, you have to risk being offensive. Our Lord and Saviour said many things about many people and some were offensive.

Truth is what matters, not whether we offend or not. If Truth is our goal and not offense… of course Truth can be used for offense but that twists the purpose.


He also said that “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Traditional Lutherans and traditional Anglicans receive their Holy Communion devoutly and with reverence and belief in Our Lord and Savior. Matthew 18: 20 implies that it is wrong to denigrate their faith and insult the belief they have in their Eucharistic Mystery.

Christ’s presence in that statement doesn’t seem to be Eucharistic.

Well… firstly I am missing that implication. Secondly, Apostles warn us about heresy and Schism. Should Church tolerate or encourage heresy?

It’s either way because Lutherans don’t have valid Bishops they lack Priesthood and can’t confer Eucharist. It’s very basic principle.


The principle appears to be wrong because any Christian can confer the Sacrament of Baptism which results in the absolution of sins. Where did Jesus say that Apostolic Succession is not necessary to confer the Sacrament of Baptism, but Apostolic Succession is necessary to confect the Eucharist? Note: when a Christian baptizes someone, all their sins go away, No?

Yes. That doesn’t confer authority to consecrate Eucharist though.

We are not Sola Scriptura Christians. Where did our Lord and Saviour say which books does Bible contain? It’s obvious that if He came to fulfill the old law and not erase it, parallel exists between Old and New Law Sacrifices. Not anyone could perform Sacrifice under Old Law and not everyone can do so under New Law. St. Paul who authored numerous writings in New Testament also claims Church is “pillar and foundation of Truth”. Since Church has ruled, “pillar and foundation of Truth” has ruled and we know that Church has validly proclaimed Truth- that there is no such thing as valid Eucharist without valid Priesthood.


But you don’t need to be ordained to confer the Sacrament of Baptism so what is the reasoning behind requiring ordination to confect the Eucharist?

The Church “pillar and foundation of Truth” had ruled on torture, allowing it under certain conditions for the Inquisition, then later on the “pillar and foundation of Truth” changed her mind and said that torture was not allowed. How do we know that the “pillar and foundation of Truth” will not change her mind on whether or not an Anglican priest can confect the Eucharist. Anyway, I don’t see the reasoning behind accepting the validity of Baptism conferred by a layperson, but not accept the confection of the Eucharist by an Anglican priest.

Where did Church teach torture was permitted? And where does it teach it isn’t?

Anglican Priest could validly consecrate Eucharist. Problem is that it has to be valid Anglican Priest… and Anglican Orders atarge are null and void. Anyhow, Truth does not change.

Ad extirpanda.

Recent papal statements.

Unfortunately truth does change. Take the question of what constitutes a “valid” marriage.
What was true today was not true in 1929.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.