Why R. Catholic and not E. Orthodox?

In our opinion, the Eastern churches split off from the original Church, which is headquartered in Rome. Ergo, they are in schism. They, of course, have a differing viewpoint, which is that the Pope had no jurisdiction over them; he only had jurisdiction over the Patriarchate of Rome. So to them, we are the ones in schism.

In my own personal opinion, the Eastern churches are a shade stagnant; I do not mean this as an indictment, merely as an observation. They still adhere to the idea that only the Roman Emperor can call for a council, and there hasn't been a Roman Emperor for a considerable number of years now. As a result, they haven't advanced much, theologically speaking, from the 9th century. The first eight ecumenical councils all had a Roman Emperor or Empress working in conjunction with the Pope, the last being the 4th Council of Constantinople in 869.

That's where the Orthodox councils ended. Situations arose in the West which had to be dealt with; however, the Byzantine (Eastern, Roman) Emperors did not see the importance of the problems, and ergo decided that calling a council to deal with them was not important; so it was left to the Pope to call a council to deal with them, the first of which was the 1st Lateran Council in 1123.

There have been thirteen councils between 1123 and 1962, all of which have dealt with some pretty weighty issues. The Orthodox have not had a council to deal with any issue since 869, since no Emperor called one after then, and since 1453, there hasn't been an Emperor to call one. As a result, as I said, they seem to be a shade stagnant, mired in history of some 1100 years ago.

I do not mean any disrespect for the Orthodox by saying this; this is merely my own personal opinion, and it carries no more or no less weight than anyone else's opinion. I have the greatest of respect for the Eastern Orthodox, and I think that in many ways, their conservatism is to be admired and emulated by we Catholics. However, you asked me why I am a Catholic and not an Orthodox, and I answered.

The bottom line is that I personally believe that the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is the most complete repository of revealed Truth; the Eastern Orthodox Churches (in my humble personal opinion), are not.

Cause Peter was set up as the leader, and He was in Rome, and that was accepted for 1000 years. I prefer to remain faithful to what Jesus established.

does orthodox churches come under one earthly leader like our pope?
or just spread out with different bishops guarding their see by their own way receiving no orders from anyone

over 1000 years without a council ,thats bad
no emperor,no council
where are they gonna find a roman emperor when the roman civilization had long been in our history text book

only if they accept the truth.then there won't be so much problem

Actually, they have their own version of the Pope. They broke off around 1000 AD because they saw the Roman Bishop as "first among equals" but not having the total authority that we give to the Pope.

The Pope is just a man, he has no real power from God, and he is not divine

or infallible.

(as you can tell, I'm not Catholic)

Of course He isnt infallible. His teachings ex cathedra are infallible. He sins just like everyone else, which is why he isnt IMPECCABLE.

Originally posted by Live!
The Pope is just a man, he has no real power from God, and he is not divine

or infallible.

(as you can tell, I'm not Catholic)

Click to expand...

Can you offer some sort of proof for your position?

Catholics believe that the Pope is just a man, but he is more than that - he is the visible head of Christ's church here on earth. He is no more divine than you or I - he has simply been chosen to lead the church.

He is, in fact infallible, when speaking on issues of faith and moral issues. Remember infallible does not equal impeccable. The Pope cannot predict the winning lottery numbers or who will win the SuperBowl, but when he is teaching the church on issues of faith and morals, he is infallible via the Holy Spirit, which gaurds the church against false teachings.

Yes, which are clearly declared as ex cathedra, and which is not done lightly. Even teachings he gives in his own writings, etc, are not infallible. Only when he is declaring ex cathedra doctrine.

thats why i like to listen to papa sermons

Why did they break off in the first place and what are the differences between them that set them apart from one another?

I dug this up from a thread I had with souljah when I first came here, I didn't want to type it all again. It's from Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church"

Cut off from Byzantium ( by the gradual fall of the western empire) the west proceeded to set up a "Roman" empire of its own....Charlamagne sought recognition from Byzantium without success...Greeks lost Latin and Rome lost Greek (language)... the Byzantines remained closed in their own world...IN THE EAST THERE WERE MANY CHURCHES WHOSE FOUNDATIONS WENT BACK TO THE APOSTLES; THERE WAS A STRONG SENSE OF THE EQUALITY OF ALL BISHOPS , OF THE COLLEGIAL AND CONCILIAR NATURE OF THE CHURCH. THE EAST ACKNOWLEDGED THE POPE AS THE FIRST BISHOP IN THE CHURCH, BUT SAW HIM AS THE FIRST AMONG EQUALS. In the west, on the other hand, there was only one great see claiming Apostolic foundation, Rome, so that Rome came to be regarded as THE apostolic see. The west, while it accepted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, did not play a very active part in the Councils themselves; the Church was seen less as a college and more as a monarchy, the monarchy of the Pope...

The breakdown of the western Empire served greatly to strengthen the autocratic stucture of the western Church. In the east there was a strong secular head, the Emperor, to uphold law and order. In the west it was the Papacy alone that could act as the center of unity, continuity, and stability. By force of circumstances, the Pope assumed a part that the Greek Patriarchs were not called to play, an autocrat , an absolute monarch over the Church, issuing commands in a way that few if any eastern bishops have ever done. The western Church became centralized to a degree unknown anywhere in the four Patriarchates of the east (except maybe Egypt). In the west Monarchy, in the east collegiality.

...The two distinctive approaches to Christian theology between east and west which were not in themselves contradictory, and supplemented one another each had a place in the fullness of Catholic tradition. But now they were becoming strangers to one another...then the west introduced the filioque, which the east refused to accept... Now as long as the Pope claimed an absolute power only in the west, Byzantium didn't mind. The Pope, however, believed his immediate power of jurisdiction to extend to the east as well as the west; and as soon as he tried to enforce this claim within the eastern Patriarchates, trouble was bound to arise. The Greeks assigned to the Pope a primacy of honor, but not the universal supremacy which he regarded as his due. The Pope viewed infallibility as his own prerogative, the Greeks held that in matters of the faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a council representing all the bishops of the Church.

...Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia:
My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office...How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule over us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasures, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.

That was in the 12th century, when the whole question was out in the open. In earlier centuries the Greek attitude to the Papacy was basically the same, although not yet sharpened by controversy. Up to 850, Rome and the east avoided an open conflict over the Papal claims, but the divergence of views was not the less serious for being partially concealed.

This is a start, there is a lot of history to cover here. The other major sticking point was the addition of the filioque by the Western church, which was regarded as a heretical innovation which muddied the nature of the Holy Spirit. It has never been accepted in the East.

There may be other small differences, but I think these are the main two.

wow......ty for this brew

We take issue with many Latin teachings, a couple being:

As an Eastern Orthodox believer we view Jesus Christ as the head of the Church, with the Pope of Rome as a Bishop of Rome the first among equals. In fact Orthodoxy stresses that all Bishops are equal with the president of a synod of Bishops being called archbishop or metropolitan.

The "treasury of merits" or extra grace accumulated by the virtue of Christ, the Virgin Mary and the saints where "indulgences" are granted to be applied to those in purgatory in order to shorten their time there.

The Holy Canons of the Church are viewed differently as well. The Orthodox Church never replaces old canons for they are inspired by the Holy Spirit where as the Latins continue to change their canons, see Vatican 2.

etc., etc., etc.,

Gideon

I think it is interesting that the Byzantine Catholics seem to follow the Eastern Orthodox Church, but they still under the Pope. - Same liturgy, Married Priests, no filioque, no Vatican 2, etc...

How is this possible?

The Vatican issued a statement clarifying its stance on the filioque (and if I can ever find the link, I promise I'll post it). From what I've read, the Orthodox Church has accepted this clarification. If I remember correctly, I think Rome said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son and that's why it's optional within the Eastern Rites still in communion with Rome.

As far as married priests go, that's discipline not dogma or doctrine. That could change.

Eastern Rite Catholics profess the faith of the Catholic Church (ie, they believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Purgatory). However, they still worship using the Divine Liturgy and keep many customs of the Eastern Orthodox Church.