Catholicism vs Orthodoxy

glaucon

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
I'm making a single thread for this topic on Anglins recommendation, since it comes up so frequently.

Firstly I have a question for the Orthodox. I was doing some research and found that the Russian Orthodox Church and the Echumenical Patriarch of Constantinople are currently in schism since 2018.


How does the Russian Orthodox Church then claim Apostolic succession if it is separateded from the Echumenical Patriarch of Constantinople? Anglin said the Jerusalem Patriarch is the more important one, but it was the Echumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who, I believe, initiated the schism with Rome, so I think this is the important one. Echumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the head of the Greek Orthodox Church from what I understand.
 

glaucon

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
The Patriarch of Constantinople isnt considered like the Orthodox version of the Pope. Its possible to be out of communion with them and have Apostolic succession. Currently even RCs and Orthodox regonize the others apostolic succession as legitimate so if Constantinople and Moscow recognize the Vaticans AS as valid and vice versa obviously there isnt dispute on those grounds between Constantinople and Moscow.
When you say " Orthodox", what does that mean? Because the Russian Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox Church are currently in schism. Who are you referring to?

I understand how Rome can claim apostolic succession, and how Constaninople can claim it, but how can Moscow claim it if they are in schism with both Rome and Constantinople? Peter never went to Moscow.
 

Dr Livci

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
Escaped True Master
I'm making a single thread for this topic on Anglins recommendation, since it comes up so frequently.

Firstly I have a question for the Orthodox. I was doing some research and found that the Russian Orthodox Church and the Echumenical Patriarch of Constantinople are currently in schism since 2018.


How does the Russian Orthodox Church then claim Apostolic succession if it is separateded from the Echumenical Patriarch of Constantinople? Anglin said the Jerusalem Patriarch is the more important one, but it was the Echumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who, I believe, initiated the schism with Rome, so I think this is the important one. Echumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the head of the Greek Orthodox Church from what I understand.
There is no head of the Orthodox church like the Pope is head of the RC church. Its not really relevant in itself that Rome broke off communon with Constantinople first, its just that the churches that sided with Constantinople are now the ones we call Orthodox. The churches that sided with Constantinople werent like "okay the Constantinople patriarch is our new pope" they simply took the Constantinople Patriarchs side over Romes and thus also fell out of communion with Rome. As a matter of fact the Russian churches main complaint with the current Greek patriarch is that he is acting like a Pope by unilateraly saying the Ukrainian church is now no longer under Moscow. As for Peter never going to Moscow within Orthodoxy your church just needs to trace back to being founded by a disciple, not Peter personally.
 

LittleGuinea

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Escaped True Master
The Greek Church isn't in schism with the Russian Church, it's the Patriarchate of Constantinople (for some reason they have jurisdiction in American Greeks churches). Furthermore, it is only the Russian church that is not in communion with Constantinople, the American Greeks still go and commune at Russian services.

This should be it's own thread since it's a complex situation that doesn't have much to do with Catholicism (although there are differences in the way we see a schism that are interesting). I wouldn't call it a schism yet since basically the stance of the Russians is "We need a council, then we will be back in communion after all the Bishops have come together to work this out."

If you want to see what a real schism looks like take the Oriental Orthodox vs Eastern Orthodox: this has persisted through several Ecumenical Councils that the Orientals don't recognize.
 

LittleGuinea

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Escaped True Master
As for Peter never going to Moscow within Orthodoxy your church just needs to trace back to being founded by a disciple, not Peter personally.
Russia was baptized by St. Vladimir, this was 1000 years after Christ.

Also "Pope" just means Bishop of Rome so the Western Church never had a "Pope" in the modern sense either.
 

Dr Livci

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
Escaped True Master
Russia was baptized by St. Vladimir, this was 1000 years after Christ.

Also "Pope" just means Bishop of Rome so the Western Church never had a "Pope" in the modern sense either.
Right but Vladimir was baptized by people who belonged to the church in Constantinople and Andrew visited the area around Kiev and apparently made the first converts in that part of the world. Vladimir was baptized by people who came from a church with Apostolic succession and he carried on the work started by Andrew.

And I know what Pope means and that even during the initial schism there was no Pope in the modern sense at all. I’m just using the term because if I said β€œthe churches that sided with Constantinople didn’t say the Constantinople patriarch is our new equivalent of Francis who is going to lead the RC Church over a thousand years in the future” that would make my writing seem even worse than it usually is.
 
Last edited:

Hastur

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬
Our Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church (capital C) is comprised of many so-called autocephalous churches (lower case c); autocephalos meaning self-governing. Meaning the patriarch of a church is the highest authority in that church, meaning there is no central, single, pope-like figure. Issues that would affect the Church has a whole are addressed in a conciliar manner, i.e., with a conclave of the bishops and or patriarchs who meet and discuss the issue and apply ecclesiastical canons and and Church traditions and laws to make a ruling. The conciliar method is copied directly from the apostles who governed the Church the same way in her nascent years.

Traditionally, the Patriarch of Constantinople was an honored position, a sort of first-among-equals; it was kind of the same thing with the Bishop of Rome before the 1054 AD schism. But beyond that the bishop of Constantinople has never had any special powers nor privileges that any other bishop does not have.

You bring up the Greeks so to keep using them as an example: Yes, the Patriarch of Constantinople is the primate (presiding bishop AKA leader AKA the father) of the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece and some other parts of the Mediterranean. He is not the Patriarch of every Greek Orthodox Church in the world, and he is certainly not in charge of other autocephalous Orthodox churches. Here in the US, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is headed by the Archbishop Elpidophoros.

Regarding the Russkies they were initially set up by the Roman (Byzantines) in the 10th century when King Vladimir converted the him and his Russian people from paganism to Christianity. But there had been Christian incursions and baptisms before then. Church tradition says that the Apostle Andrew ministered to the Rus way back when. So there is your chain of apostolic succession.

I admit it can look a bit messy at times, but this system has worked from antiquity until today. And again, the conciliar approach was handed down from the apostles.

As for modern schism between Constantinople and Moscow that is all Jewish geo-politics doing what they do best - stirring up shit and causing trouble for the rest of us.
 

glaucon

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
There is no head of the Orthodox church like the Pope is head of the RC church. Its not really relevant in itself that Rome broke off communon with Constantinople first, its just that the churches that sided with Constantinople are now the ones we call Orthodox. The churches that sided with Constantinople werent like "okay the Constantinople patriarch is our new pope" they simply took the Constantinople Patriarchs side over Romes and thus also fell out of communion with Rome. As a matter of fact the Russian churches main complaint with the current Greek patriarch is that he is acting like a Pope by unilateraly saying the Ukrainian church is now no longer under Moscow. As for Peter never going to Moscow within Orthodoxy your church just needs to trace back to being founded by a disciple, not Peter personally.
Does Peter not have the same importance in the Orthodox Church that he has in the Catholic Church? Does the Orthodox Church interpret Matthew 16:18 differently than Catholics do?
 

glaucon

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’

If anyone has the patience to make it through this, this was a good debate along with follow up discussions by both sides. Of course you go on the Catholic channel all the Catholics say Ybarra won, and all the Orthodox on Jay Dyers channel say he won.
 

LittleGuinea

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Escaped True Master
Yes, the Patriarch of Constantinople is the primate (presiding bishop AKA leader AKA the father) of the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece and some other parts of the Mediterranean. He is not the Patriarch of every Greek Orthodox Church in the world, and he is certainly not in charge of other autocephalous Orthodox churches. Here in the US, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is headed by the Archbishop Elpidophoros.
The Patriarch of Constantinople is not in charge of the Greek Church in Greece, that ended when they become independent from the Ottomans. The US Greek churches have an Archbishop, but he is under Constantinople (to the dismay of many American Orthodox faithful). That is why it is so absurd that Pat Bartholomew is whining about autocephaly in Ukraine while he keeps them under his control.
Does Peter not have the same importance in the Orthodox Church that he has in the Catholic Church? Does the Orthodox Church interpret Matthew 16:18 differently than Catholics do?
Yes there are various interpretations of that passage, but generally the Church-approved doctrine is that Peter had a special role just not one of absolute power.
If anyone has the patience to make it through this, this was a good debate along with follow up discussions by both sides. Of course you go on the Catholic channel all the Catholics say Ybarra won, and all the Orthodox on Jay Dyers channel say he won.
I will try and check this out, but Jay is just too annoying for me most of the time.
 

JR_Rustler_III

πŸ‡°πŸ‡· Gookwaffen πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©
Destructive Ceremonious Master
As for modern schism between Constantinople and Moscow that is all Jewish geo-politics doing what they do best - stirring up shit and causing trouble for the rest of us.
This is the problem with schism--do it once, and suddenly you find it happening over and over again.

The Protestants are "every man his own church", and the Orthodox are "every nation its own church". Neither is a fit way to worship God. There can be only one Church, the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Fortunately, the theological differences between the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church can be--and, I'm 100% confident, will be--pretty easily resolved, and at some point in the future, we'll have one Church again. We won't have to worry about the Protestant churches because, by that point, they will have effectively ceased to exist.
 

LittleGuinea

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Escaped True Master
This is the problem with schism--do it once, and suddenly you find it happening over and over again.

The Protestants are "every man his own church", and the Orthodox are "every nation its own church". Neither is a fit way to worship God. There can be only one Church, the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Fortunately, the theological differences between the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church can be--and, I'm 100% confident, will be--pretty easily resolved, and at some point in the future, we'll have one Church again. We won't have to worry about the Protestant churches because, by that point, they will have effectively ceased to exist.
Why do butthurt Trad Caths always repeat this "each nation is a different Church" nonsense when it has been shown to be false so many times? If a city has a different Bishop than another city are they not part of the same Church? Similarly some countries have their own Patriarch (some don't) it doesn't mean they aren't part of the Orthodox Church.

These breaks in communion happen every so often and are resolved eventually. It sucks, but it's better than being taken-over by Jews and homos and having to suck it up because your church is over-centralized.

In any case, the break in communion between Constantinople and Moscow is complex and I'll make a thread for it sometime soon rather than wasting this thread with off-topic discussion (I mean unless you really think that this lapse in communion is worse than, say, the Reformation; surely even butthurt Trad Caths aren't that delusional).
 

JR_Rustler_III

πŸ‡°πŸ‡· Gookwaffen πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©
Destructive Ceremonious Master
It sucks, but it's better than being taken-over by Jews and homos and having to suck it up because your church is over-centralized.
"The Church" hasn't been taken over by Jews and homos, only the Vatican. And the Vatican is not "the Church".

These breaks in communion happen every so often and are resolved eventually.
You're making my point for me.
 

Hastur

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬
Fortunately, the theological differences between the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church can be--and, I'm 100% confident, will be--pretty easily resolved, and at some point in the future, we'll have one Church again. ...
I agree that a lot of the differences could be resolved and I'd like to see the schism healed between the two, but realistically I do not see that happening. I hope I am wrong, but time will tell.

*******

A short essay that's germaine to the this thread, entitled Papism as the Oldest Protestantism: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papism.aspx
 
Last edited:

LittleGuinea

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Escaped True Master
"The Church" hasn't been taken over by Jews and homos, only the Vatican. And the Vatican is not "the Church".



You're making my point for me.
Cope more.

I don't know what your point is. It's well known that there is a single Eastern Orthodox Church. This single Church encounters challenges and problems and resolves them.

This is a thread for comparing two religions. Are you arguing that some squabbles between Patriarchates are worse than the Reformation that your problems caused?
 

JR_Rustler_III

πŸ‡°πŸ‡· Gookwaffen πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©
Destructive Ceremonious Master
A short essay that's germaine to the this thread, entitled Papism as the Oldest Protestantism: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papism.aspx
That's gobbledygook. Totally incoherent.

Question: if "papism" was so bad, why did the Orthodox not have any problem with it for 1100 years??

Look, I get why Constantinople split from Rome--Muslim pirates had made the Mediterranean a no-go zone for centuries, which greatly hampered travel and communication between the two poles of the former Roman Empire. Eventually the relationship broke down completely, and they split. But then, to justify the split, they invented some goofy nonsense that the papacy never really existed, like it was a figment of everybody's imagination for, you know, over a thousand years. It's stupid.

It's funny. From a Roman Catholic's view, there really isn't much to discuss. The split was political, the theological differences are trivial, and at some point the schism will get resolved.
 

JR_Rustler_III

πŸ‡°πŸ‡· Gookwaffen πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©
Destructive Ceremonious Master
This is a thread for comparing two religions. Are you arguing that some squabbles between Patriarchates are worse than the Reformation that your problems caused?
lolwut??? Protestantism is a heresy--you understand that, right??? And Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Catholicism are not "two religions". They are one religion operating under two different administrative structures.
 
Last edited:

LittleGuinea

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Escaped True Master
lolwut??? Protestantism is a heresy--you understand that, right??? And Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Catholicism are not "two religions". They are one religion operating under two different administrative structures.
Of course I understand what Prots are, my point is that we are in a thread devoted to comparison. So which "schism" (if you insist on the term) is worse: the Reformation or, say, the Macedonia break in communion which lasted some years before being resolved?

I won't debate the question of being different religions, that's getting into semantical weeds.
 

Seamus McHermit

Save America, punch a Nazi
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
Of course I understand what Prots are, my point is that we are in a thread devoted to comparison. So which "schism" (if you insist on the term) is worse: the Reformation or, say, the Macedonia break in communion which lasted some years before being resolved?

I won't debate the question of being different religions, that's getting into semantical weeds.
Arguing with a Catholic is very similar to arguing with a Protestant. It's always circular. Just like Protestants will argue in circles forever about Sola Scriptura and how the church fathers were really proto-prots, but will squirm their way out of the question:

"if Sola Scriptura is true, can you kindly point out in the Bible where it says that the Bible is the final word on everything, and explain these dozens of places in the Bible where it actually says the opposite of that?",


So too argues the Catholic about Peter being the Rock, and that giving justification for the Pope being king of the earth, even though there's a thousand years of history to contradict that assertion that's built on a very flimsy interpretation of a single verse. I thought Catholics were against Sola Scriptura though? But it will always come back to Peter the Rock.

Anyone who studies long enough is going to come to the conclusion that Orthodoxy is the correct and historical Church, unless their preconceptions prevent them from seeing the truth.

It's a shame that Jay Dyer is so annoying to so many people, because it's all there on his YouTube channel. If someone were to spend the time to listen to every theological argument on that channel, it would be impossible to come to any other conclusion than that Orthodoxy is correct, but I don't think anyone could stand to listen to Jay for that long.
 

JR_Rustler_III

πŸ‡°πŸ‡· Gookwaffen πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©
Destructive Ceremonious Master
Of course I understand what Prots are, my point is that we are in a thread devoted to comparison. So which "schism" (if you insist on the term) is worse: the Reformation or, say, the Macedonia break in communion which lasted some years before being resolved?
One is a schism based on heresy, the other is schism based on a political disagreement. Just like the political disagreement between Rome and Constantinople.

Get it??
 

JR_Rustler_III

πŸ‡°πŸ‡· Gookwaffen πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©
Destructive Ceremonious Master
So too argues the Catholic about Peter being the Rock, and that giving justification for the Pope being king of the earth, even though there's a thousand years of history to contradict that assertion that's built on a very flimsy interpretation of a single verse. I thought Catholics were against Sola Scriptura though? But it will always come back to Peter the Rock.
The Catholic Church runs on both Scripture and Tradition. And the papacy, like everything Catholic, is duly founded in both scripture, and tradition.

I keep asking this question over and over, but never get an answer: the eastern part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was fine with the papacy for 1100 years--that's a whole lot of tradition--then suddenly they decided that 1100 years of scripture and tradition were wrong. What changed??

The obvious answer is, the papacy became politically inconvenient to them.

This really isn't that complicated. But Orthodox make it complicated because they have to justify the schism to themselves, because they were the ones that initiated the schism.

I really don't have a problem with Orthodox Church, it's 99% the same as the Roman Catholic Church. Both are the same religion running under two different administrative systems. The only problem is, one of those systems is consistent with both scripture and tradition, and the other is not. Eventually the OC Church will come around.

The protestant schism can never be healed because it is based in heresy. But the RC/OC schism will be healed, because it was the result of a political problem that was actually pretty understandable given the historical circumstances. The fact that both the RC and OC churches have remained essentially identical, with respect to the things that matter, after almost a thousand years apart tells you that they have always been the same thing, theologically speaking.
 
Last edited:

Creepy-ass Cracker

Catholic β€’ Pre-Vatican II β€’ Sedevacantist
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Those who are interested in more thorough apologetics against the errors of Orthodoxy may wish to consult the following sources:
 

Hastur

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬
The Catholic Church runs on both Scripture and Tradition. And the papacy, like everything Catholic, is duly founded in both scripture, and tradition.

I keep asking this question over and over, but never get an answer: the eastern part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was fine with the papacy for 1100 years--that's a whole lot of tradition--then suddenly they decided that 1100 years of scripture and tradition were wrong. What changed . . .
The Orthodox have a long tradition of calling the Bishop of Rome the Pope, this goes back centuries. But even the Bishop of Rome was just that - a bishop. He wasn't the boss of all Christendom back in the early centuries; even The Pope AKA the Bishop of Rome, was part of and accountable to the different episcopal councils. Interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that every successor to Peter will be the undisputed leader of the Church is really going far out on a limb, and pushing the old envelope.
 
Top