Please provide provide proof that the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong and that the Eastern Orthodox Church is not an Orthodox Catholic Church.
I attend a Maronite Catholic Church which is Eastern rite, very spiritual and reverent and not a victim of the negative Modernist liturgical deformities found in many “liberal” Novus Ordo churches resulting from Vatican II. The Maronites are from Lebanon and Syria and are in full Communion with the Roman Catholic Church. It’s Roman Catholicism with an Eastern culture and liturgy.
That’s your argument.
BTW, there is still no Orthodox Church. They aren’t ONE even among themselves. No ONE speaks for them.
From Q/A Bp Elya
First claim: We are the Orthodox Church in communion with Rome!”
Objection: “When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic.
To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
Wow! I had no idea I attend an imposter church! But I suppose that is not surprising since I’m a schismatic condemned to hell.
I really wish you would be willing to listen for just a fraction of a second when I says that the Orthodox are one. Our faith is the same and regardless of jurisdictional squabbles the fact that we share the same faith amongst the various Orthodox churches does not change.
It’s more than just squabbles
See the progression
From Cardinal Kasper, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in 2002
“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from https://zenit.org/articles/the-crisi...rdinal-kasper/
Fast forward to 2016
Pan Orthodox council failed due to the Russian boycott of the meeting
1100+ yrs and they not only can’t get together, the Russians boycott the Pan Orthodox meeting. .
Note: Pope Francis sent two observers to the council: Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and the pontifical council’s secretary, Bishop Brian Farrell. They were denied participation
moving forward 2018
Russians (60%+ of Orthodoxy) break from Constantinople / Istanbul. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/eastern-orthodox-breach-russian-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople
What was said in 2002 by Card Kasper came true in 2018
seems a bit more than a squabble
Considering you don’t even consider the Orthodox to be a church you sure do pay close attention to us.
What you cite reinforces my point of jurisdictional issues, not issues of faith. Frankly it’s kind of embarrassing that the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow can’t work things out and certainly doesn’t provide a good witness to Christ to the world, it doesn’t mean that our shared faith is in any way impacted.
If you really wanted to understand the Orthodox, you might do well to consider sources beyond the Catholic media.
PS: the Orthdox have met more recently than 1100+ years ago as you assert. See for example the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672.
PPS: the good Cardinal seems to want to employ the Latin ecclesial model wherein there is one primate with supreme jurisdiction. That isn’t Orthodox. The Autocephalous churches don’t need to be “integrated” by Constantinople.
The point being made by the Cardinal is, the Orthodox are churches, not A church. Each one individually is a church but Orthodoxy together, are churches not a church. That was his point.
Aren’t there doctrinal issues as well?
Is there anything I linked to inaccurate?
A Pan Orthodox meeting?
Jesus didn’t set up a Church with multiple heads at the top. Peter was the leader of all.
You keep looking at the Orthodox Church with a Latin mindset. We have no problem understanding ourselves as both individual churches and as the One Church.
What are these doctrinal issues you think are at issue?
It is certainly expressed from the Latin mindset.
Yes. I wouldn’t have brought it up otherwise.
Correct, he set up a Church with Himself as head.
I am late to this conversation, but I’d like to share my experiences in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
First of all, I live in Canada and have moved around a lot. I became Orthodox in a Greek Orthodox parish. I’ve attended at Greek, Russian, Ukranian, Serbian, OCA, and Antiochian communities. The Russian Liturgy was divine but I was made to feel quite unwelcome, even by the priest. It really seemed that the congregation was more interested in preserving Russianness than emphasizing Christianity, to my mind. I also attended a Greek parish for a year or so. Lovely services, but again, it was both a church and a hellenic club and people seemed a bit baffled as to why I was there. Try as I did to make it my home, I always felt like a tourist.
At OCA churches, I have encountered a different kind of Orthodoxy: primarily ex-protestant Orthodoxy. It just struck me as being a bit inauthentic at times. Maybe it’s just me. I found one Antiochian parish that wasn’t terribly ethnic and had a mix of cradle and convert Christians, and was able to attend for awhile before relocating again. Maybe the parish in your area will be one like this, with any luck.
I don’t mean to be uncharitable, as I love much about Orthodoxy: the liturgies, the icons, the saints, the chanting and singing. But after years of traveling often an hour to worship in little ethnic parishes, often listening to sermons in other languages, I decided to attend Mass. After several weeks of attending, I converted to Catholicism. To me, it is just much more universal. Both churches have their problems, sure, and both have great and holy saints, thinkers, and lovely art and tradition. Given my experiences in both, though, and in addition to good reasons offered throughout this thread, I must recommend the Catholic Church.
The question was to point to the completion of the answer to the reason for unleavened bread at the Passover meal where only unleavened bread is used
The Cardinal in charge of the Pontifical council for promoting Christian unity, made the point, within Orthodoxy, no ONE is in charge. No ONE speaks for Orthodoxy. Each church is its own separate church so each one has to be dealt with separately. Ergo churches, not church.
Toll house theology by the Russians for example
was anything posted inaccurate
could you list all the Pan Orthodox councils since 1045
With Peter and his successors as His prime ministers on the earth, who receive the keys.
You can do your own homework.
Look, we’re not going to come to agreement on anything so why don’t we just stop this here?
And what is the response - if any? Was it justified for the Roman Church to list acceptance of a married clergy as a reason for anathematizing His all Holiness Michael Cerularius?
How is there perfect theological unity in the Roman Catholic Church when there are many theological differences among Roman Catholics.
Some favor capital punishment; others say it is not allowed.
Some say the torture of the inquisition was acceptable; others say torture is wrong and against human dignity.
Some say the Blood was shed for all; others say the Blood was shed for many.
Some say in their creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; others say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
Some say that unleavened bread is appropriate for the Mass; others say no. The others say that leavened bread is appropriate for the Mass.
Also, I don’t know if all Eastern Catholics accept the western teaching on mortal and venial sin.
Some Eastern Catholics will venerate St. Photius and St. Constantine as saints; but according to what I read on CAF, there are Roman Catholics who do not accept them as saints. However, I don’t know if that is official teaching or not.
Some Roman Catholics say unbaptized infants who die go to limbo; others say not.
How can the unity in the Roman Catholic Church be said to be perfect if there is disagreement on these issues?
It’s what the Church officially teaches that counts for that unity. Personal opinions will always exist, but are just that, personal opinions.
I believe that East and West compliment each other.
Roman Catholics contradict each other on several issues:
Existence of limbo for unbaptized babies
The use of leavened or unleavened bread at Mass
Should the filioque be in the Nicene Creed said at Mass
Was the inquisition justified in using torture to extract confessions
Was the Blood shed for all or for many
Recognition of some saints?