What makes Catholicism true compared to Eastern Orthodoxy?

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?

First, I would say that I think the Catholic position tends to be that they are both true, that they are like 2 sides to the same coin. Or 2 lungs to the same body.

As far as the divisive issue of authority, including the issue of the Pope, I would side with the Catholic view because it has history and Scripture on its side. Jesus said, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”. And he gave to Peter alone the keys. This argument has been made throughout history dating back to the early church. Even the Orthodox acknowledged the authority of the Pope in the early church, because that is the true orthodox position.

For me its really that simple. Upon Peter Jesus builds his church. And, the gates of Hades does not prevail. No arguing needed. Just simple faith in the words of Jesus.

As the previous poster correctly pointed out is not a matter of truth since they both have valid Sacraments and most important ALL 7 Sacraments.

We may quibble on some fine points of theology but they are not really that far apart.
The real issue is one of authority.

Peter is the only Rock on which the Church is built. That are Jesus’s words.

And by the way the Catholic Church has worked strenuously to mend the rift that was caused mostly by political issues not theological ones.
So when debating an Orthodox the motive should be one of reconciliation rather than conversion.
Just my :twocents:

Both are true Churches. The schism could be healed but political issues make this difficult.

as far as i understand; it is just an “issue” about the Pope’s authority…

other than that; the schism shouldn’t exist

right? or am i wrong?

There are plenty of differences. As for the ones that seriously divide us they would be both the matters of papal supremacy and the Filioque clause. A clear decision would have to be made on these to resolve the schism.

These other issues are also serious, but could be left alone and permitted as theological opinions not mandated for all believers:

1.) The Immaculate Conception
2.) Marriage and Divorce
3.) The small present differences between Original Sin and Ancestral Sin

Two days ago East and West celebrated the Feast of Saint Andrew. For that occasion, the Pope wrote a letter to the Patriarch using and preaching in his words “the logic of love”.

I agree that authority is a concern due to the ecumenically written “Ravenna Document” (Oct 13 2007).

When either side reaches out vis-a-vis with the words of Jesus “that they all may be one” (Jn 17:21) is then that we approach truth.

Because Eastern Orthodoxy has a persistent affinity for heresies? Those sees at one time or another, under their respective patriarchs were teaching heresies. socrates58.blogspot.ae/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy

Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul "the Black" c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite

Without divine guarantee, we see that the Gates of Hades will prevail. Mat 16:18

The article has more details.

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.

And as for affinity for heresy, the Frankish Church in the Latin West took centuries to accept icon veneration as valid after II Nicaea. That’s a pretty big deal. Additionally, the Latin West had to deal with a prolonged case of Arianism, Adoptionism, etc. So if your only saving grace is that the pope never taught ex cathedra heresy, then it doesn’t mean much to me. Especially when what is or isn’t ex cathedra is hotly debated amongst Catholic theologians. I honestly would expect that someone’s reasons for choosing either Orthodoxy or Catholicism over the other to be a little more in-depth than the reasons you have suggested.

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.

Many of the eastern bishops mentioned were not Monophysite heretics , but actually Myaphisites so there’s that …

This is a tough issue. I don’t think you’ll find a single piece of evidence that removes all possibility of doubt. I think it is a cumulative case. I think only Catholicism has a working principle of unity. The Orthodox’s principle is basically unity of right doctrine which is what Protestantism relies on. Two post schism councils achieved reunion which was subsequently rejected by the Orthodox churches. The Eastern Catholic Churches are further evidence that reunion is possible. The Maronite Church is evidence that ancient churches viewed the Pope as having authority over the whole Church. These various pieces of evidence for me form a strong case for the Catholic position.

youtube.com/watch?v=MvD2qzjXi54 Welcome :smiley: :wink:

Hi Vaseljen. Admittedly I only watched the beginning of the video, but I didn’t see a need to watch more because I don’t deny that there are Western Orthodox. (Likewise there are Eastern Catholics.)



The above links are to two parts of a podcast by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, an Orthodox priest. (these were linked to in a recent thread but I forget which one) These two parts discuss the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism from the Orthodox view point. I thought it was a good listen and learned some things about Orthodoxy. What I found of particular interest was the part on Triadology when discussing the Filioque which was new to me.

Helpful Links:

Peter and the Eastern Orthodox

Peter’s Primacy

Eastern Orthodoxy

I’m not sure what your point is. There have been and will be break away groups i.e. schismatics and heretics. Western Orthodoxy is a bit strange to me as it abandons the patrimony of the local church. Part of Catholicism and Orthodoxy is placing high value on tradition. In the West the Old Catholic church makes more sense, as I understand it and at its inception, as it just rejected what it viewed as a novel claim of papal infallibility. It didn’t however adopt Eastern spirituality.

If Western Orthodoxy is essentially Catholicism without whatever points of contention exist between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, e.g. papal jurisdiction and the Filioque, it doesn’t prove nearly as much as Eastern Catholics. That is because Western Orthodoxy would be merely subtractive whereas Eastern Catholicism could be considered additive. I don’t mean additive in the sense of adding something novel but in being a fuller, truer more complete faith.

I don’t see the mere existence of Eastern Catholic Churches as proving Catholicism. I see it as showing that Orthodoxy can be reconciled and united with the Latin Church and her teachings. Western Orthodoxy doesn’t prove the opposite.

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.

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)

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.

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.