Posted on 06/03/2012 1:47:18 PM PDT by Salvation
Constantinople is the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch, who is considered to be the 'First among equals' in the Orthodox Church. The great city that was once Constantinople..is still one of the most fascinating cities in the world. And the Patriarchate, although it cannot compare with its glorious past as the center of the world, is still the seat of the leader of Orthodox Christianity. http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8880
As for The Roman Church, that is a term used by Rome herself, as many times in the Dictatus Papae: That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatus_papae: Some historians argue that it was written (or dictated) by Gregory VII himself; others argue that it has been inserted in the register at a later date, and that it had a different origin)
Also,
I, Pius, bishop of the Catholic Church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the Holy Roman Church uses. http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm
As is the church of Rome: 834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity."315 " http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm
The Dei Filius (http://www.disf.org/en/documentation/11-vaticancouncili.asp) sanctions the title, Roman Church, as "the holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church," which was adopted unanimously on 24 April 1870 by the First Vatican Council on the Catholic faith.
And such use in distinction from the Orthodox is warranted:
"The Catholic Church is also called the Roman Church to emphasize that the centre of unity, which is an essential for the Universal Church, is the Roman See" (Thomas J. O'Brien, An Advanced Catechism of Catholic Faith and Practice, Kessinger Publishers, 2005, ISBN 1-4179-8447-3, page 70)
For the Orthodox also consider themselves to be the one true Church:
In the Nicene Creed of faith our Church is described as the "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church": "One" because there can only be one true Church with one head Who is Christ... Each of these titles is limiting in some respects, since they define Christians belonging to particular historical or regional Churches of the Orthodox communion... After the seventh Ecumenical Council in AD 787, the basic unity of faith and ecclesiastical life between East and West began to disintegrate, due to a variety of theological, jurisdictional, cultural and political differences. This eventually led to the Great Schism between East and West of AD 1054. (http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/)
And despite their communion, there are significant things that divide them somewhat:
► The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional. Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.
► The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is, the inter-mediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God.
Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076
► Father Theodore Pulcini: What I found most disturbing in my reading was that the Orthodox objected to the doctrine [of the Immaculate Conception] not so much because of its proclamation of Mary as immaculate (indeed, the Orthodox liturgy repeatedly refers to Mary as "all holy ... .. immaculate," and "most blessed") but because of the erroneous understanding of original sin underlying it...
I sadly concluded that the erroneous Roman understanding of original sin had led to another erroneous teaching, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The dogma was clearly an unwarranted innovation.
It was much the same with the dogma of papal infallibility. This doctrine asserts that when the pope speaks ex cathedra, "from the throne," or officially, on matters of faith and morals, he teaches infallibly. Thus the whole Church is bound by his teaching. Orthodoxy and Catholicism - What are the differences - Father Theodore Pulcini ISBN 978-1-888212-23-5 [69] http://almoutran.com/2011/03/251
► Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs....
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
► It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
And thus real union finds oppositions from both sides:
► Then there are those who attempt to join together all Christian religions into one faith. They would be horrified at the idea of a service with Hindus and Christians celebrating together, yet they do not bat an eyelash at the idea of Orthodox celebrating with Roman Catholics, who with no authority broke off from the Church close to a thousand years ago. (http://www.orthodox.net/articles/against-ecumenism.html)
► Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation. Finally, and very crucially, they embrace radically different views of the final destiny of man. In this respect they both employ the concept of "deification", but possess very different understandings of what this term signifies. http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii
More on differences http://www.examiner.com/orthodox-christian-in-roanoke/orthodoxy-101-comparison;
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/12/lay-roman-catholic-and-eastern-orthodox.htm:
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DisagrementsSSandSE.html
Listen. I’ll be honest with you here. I’m not really interested in discussing out of context cut and paste snippets that can be construed into whatever position someone wants to make.
“Protected”? Protected from what?
“Catholics know the Church is the Body of Christ on earth, protected by the Holy Spirit and is the pillar of truth.”
And how long have they “known” that?
You are correct. I’m not interested in that. People can cut and paste snippets back and forth out of wikipedia all day long. If that bothers you, or stikes you as humorous, that I’m not interested, please seek help.
Also, please note that since I’m not interested in discussing the Orthodox Church right now, while we’ve been discussing the Ukrainians, that does not mean or imply that I have called him a liar. You can just hold on to that accusation before it leaves your fingers.
That is a pretty disingenuous game to play.
I could make the claim that Protestants believe Satan drives an ice cream truck in Loma Linda for a living.
Although my comment might be based on what 2 drunks who claim to be Protestants told me they saw, the fact is that Protestants in general don't believe that. And to claim that Protestants do believe that, based on the hearsay of 2 people, is dishonest.
Name just one universally held "0pinion".
Peace be with you
Incorrect again — travel to the Ukraine and then talk. Since you haven’t, you are in no position to comment on that
Why support someone who disavows the trinity?
Iscool: God did not identify the Trinity...
You say God is three persons...You are wrong again...God is a Spirit...Look it up in the scriptures.or another one
1l1f1b: Modalism teaches, the Father is God, Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit is the Father.
Iscool: Well guess what...That's what the bible teaches...
Jesus said that if you've seem me, you've seen the Father...Jesus said I and the Father are one..
Jesus was sitting on or in God...Perhaps the Throne is more like a couch that has more than three spots for sitting
But then some bumptious ones will support any kind of interpretation -- even this, or Mormonism or unitarianism....
it’s technically correct, as in polish you are not “in Ukraine” but “on Ukraine”, since this is ukrainian lands. U Kraina means on the lands (border lands)
*My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts!*
*My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts!*
pauvre met, You have heard of Ukraine before today, right?
Gee, bb, who knew you were going to call anyone a liar?
Projection is a very revealing thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.