Comparing and Contrasting Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Peter was commanded to feed His sheep 3 times BECAUSE Peter DENIED Him 3 times. It was not some special request. I believe Andrew was first called.

Click to expand...

Please see the previous post.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Peter was commanded to feed His sheep 3 times BECAUSE Peter DENIED Him 3 times. It was not some special request. I believe Andrew was first called.

Click to expand...

Again, here we see that the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic understandings of Peterine authority are different. I'm linking it to his authority over the Church, whereas Yeshua HaDerekh sees it as a simple reference back to his denial of Christ earlier. Just a demonstration of how Catholics and Orthodox can see things differently. I see it as his authority, personally.



And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (Matthew 4:18)

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; (Matthew 10:2)

Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (Mark 1:26)

Albion said:

Let's say that's true. It still doesn't say a thing about a papacy, which is the most distinctive doctrine of the Church of Rome, the Vatican Catholic Church. And that's what we've been discussing.

Click to expand...

Well, the Papacy is described as the continuance of the See of Peter. If you check the historical lists of Bishops of Rome, it does, indeed, go all the way back to Peter.

Gracia Singh said:

Well, the Papacy is described as the continuance of the See of Peter. If you check the historical lists of Bishops of Rome, it does, indeed, go all the way back to Peter.

Click to expand...

Check the list of the Bishops of Yerushalayim...

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Check the list of the Bishops of Yerushalayim...

Click to expand...

Yes, and it definitely goes all the way back to James. But as I can still read a Peterine primacy even in the text of the NT, and as I must believe that pre-Reformation Christianity was valid theologically and historically, and as I accept that the early Church was essentially Catholic not only in a general sense, but in a "Roman Catholic" sense (as opposed to Protestantism), I am inclined to go with the Catholic / Latin understanding of Church history and authority.

Gracia Singh said:

And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (Matthew 4:18)

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; (Matthew 10:2)

Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (Mark 1:26)

Click to expand...

Andrew, in Orthodoxy, is named "the first called"

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Andrew, in Orthodoxy, is named "the first called"

Click to expand...

He may be called that within Orthodoxy, but in lists of the Apostles appearing in the NT itself, Peter always comes first. That has to mean something, especially given that the Scriptures were given us by the Church.

Gracia Singh said:

Yes, and it definitely goes all the way back to James. But as I can still read a Peterine primacy even in the text of the NT, and as I must believe that pre-Reformation Christianity was valid theologically and historically, and as I accept that the early Church was essentially Catholic not only in a general sense, but in a "Roman Catholic" sense (as opposed to Protestantism), I am inclined to go with the Catholic / Latin understanding of Church history and authority.

Click to expand...

The early church was indeed "catholic", Rome being a part of it.

Sola1517 said:

What does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe?

What does the Roman Catholic Church believe?

I believe (I may be wrong) the Protestant churches believe the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation
Sola Scriptura- The belief that Scripture is the rule of faith, not creed.
Sola Fide- The belief that faith justifies the individual, not works.
Sola Christus- The belief in the substitutionary atonement of Christ in place of the sinner.
Sola Gratia- The belief that salvation is a work of God's grace alone, not human assistance.
Soli Deo Gloria- The belief that one should live under the lordship of God alone.

Five Solas | Theopedia

My hope is that we can come to appreciate each other's differences and understand each other better as we are all one in Christ Jesus.

Click to expand...

3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos, are you not mere human beings? (1 Corinthians 3).

All these divisions are anti-Jesus. All churches are traditions of men and they are wrong. They lead people away from the true Jesus.

Orthodoxy = Catholicism = Protestantism = Churchianity = Anti-Jesus.

Sola1517 said:

What does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe?

What does the Roman Catholic Church believe?

I believe (I may be wrong) the Protestant churches believe the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation
Sola Scriptura- The belief that Scripture is the rule of faith, not creed.
Sola Fide- The belief that faith justifies the individual, not works.
Sola Christus- The belief in the substitutionary atonement of Christ in place of the sinner.
Sola Gratia- The belief that salvation is a work of God's grace alone, not human assistance.
Soli Deo Gloria- The belief that one should live under the lordship of God alone.

Five Solas | Theopedia

My hope is that we can come to appreciate each other's differences and understand each other better as we are all one in Christ Jesus.

Click to expand...

Ok I'll take a stab (my understanding, as a fledgling EO and former Sola Scriptura Protestant) -

The big thing that you are missing is that both the EO and RCC are from a single line that was apostolic. The apostles were essentially the first Bishops, even though they may not have had the formal title. They administered the sacraments of the Church. Other bishops and priests were appointed by existing bishops as the body of believers grew.

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is,there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid."
Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia

He lived 35AD-108AD. He was close in timeline to the original apostles and Paul. Tradition holds that he was a disciple of the Apostle John.

The different gospels and letters circulating over the first couple of centuries were reviewed by the bishops of the Church for inclusion in what became the Bible. I think you are looking at about 4th century(?) before you have them assembled.

From an EO perspective: "The Bible is the supreme expression of God's revelation to the human race, and Christians must always be People of the Book. But if Christians are People of the Book, the Bible is the Book of the People; it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church (that is why one should not separate Scripture and Tradition). It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives it's authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority" ~Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church

Ecumenical Councils of the Bishops provide the Creeds and other interpretations. Otherwise, if someone just took the Bible and ran with it outside the Church structure, I don't know you might have 400 or 500 denominations running around all saying slightly different things that were way different... and maybe not what was intended or handed down from Christ to the apostles

As far as EO is concerned, 'the Pope' was the Bishop of Rome. We considered him 'first among equals' in terms of his bishop-ness as a nod to his lineage from Peter. But over time it seems like he claimed more than a nod. EO doesn't have or want or believe in a Pope equivalent, and RCC split from us in 1054. (I think? there were some earlier splits over various interpretations of the man-God nature of Christ that resulted in the Oriental Church and Coptic Christians)

RCC Crusaders also burned our frickin' capital in the 4th crusade!... not that we are still bitter about that... But that's why it's Istanbul, not Constantinople. ...Thanks guys. The Byzantine Empire never really recovered from the sacking and eventually fell to Islam. I found when I looked at the persecutions EO endured under Islam and later communism in Russia, it embodied the sacrificial nature of Christ in a way I had not seen before. 'This Church has gone through trauma' was something that came to my mind as I read the history.

I will say that there is AN INCREDIBLE WEALTH of writings and prayers and traditions and theological thought by the early church fathers, St Athanasius, St Basil the Great and many others that ANY Christian can benefit from. Many of those are shared by RCC, we have a thousand years of common tradition and communion and teaching. RCC 'evolved' more for better or for worse. EO is pretty much what EO always was and what EO always will be. I would not have even found EO if it wasn't for RCC, so credit where credit is due

Both EO and RCC are intensely Liturgical. Communion is a sacrament and is Sacred to a degree that I did not find emphasized in non denominational Protestant churches. We believe He meant what He said. RCC Mass or EO Liturgy - these are prayer services centered around the Holy Communion. Those prayers, when you stop and think about them, have been prayed for the last 2000 years. It's the biggest prayer that has even been prayed. 'Whatsoever ye ask of the Father...' Take a good look at what is being asked for... That ceremony and those prayers are the very heartbeat of the Church. The Liturgy we read is the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. It is circa 400AD.

The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom - Liturgical Texts of the Orthodox Church - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Sola Fide - the belief that faith justifies the individual not works

I think that EO would say that works are an excellent expression of faith. Where as some non-denoms might say 'I am saved', an EO would say, Christ is in the process of saving me. I am partnering with him. How am I doing that? By participating in the sacraments of the Church, and pursuing my own spiritual walk and allowing Him to transform me. Allowing the Holy Spirit to grow. Tending the garden. EO encourages things such as fasting and morning and evening prayers, as well as meditative forms of prayer, particularly 'the Jesus Prayer'. Similar in nature to Hail Mary's I think

Myself, I am a sober alcoholic in AA and we have a saying 'it works if you work it (and it don't if you don't)'. Coming back to any kind of Church after 20 years was the last thought on my mind. AA encouraged me to seek a Higher Power though, and in prayer when I asked, God gave me two things that eventually led me to EO:

Rule #1: A Disciple needs discipline
Rule #2: You don't get to make the rules.

Those 2 things (and a brief relationship with an RCC that started me really exploring Church history) led me to EO, which is where I personally belong.

For the rest of my Christian brothers and sisters I would say Luke 9:49-50. Love you all.

But if you are really curious about EO, check out the excellent books, The Orthodox Way and The Orthodox Church. You may find something you've been looking for.

The first church was just a church... we added all these denominational names later.

JESUS=G.O.A.T said:

When Christianity is agreeable or seen as legal and acceptable in the worlds eyes it's not Christianity it's conformity.

Click to expand...

According to one magazine, tens of thousands of Christians were martyred last year. There were problems from Islamic countries and other countries where Christianity is not legal. It did not have to be particularly good or bad Christianity to draw such intense hatred. Some of those who do not conform to Islam got killed.

dqhall said:

According to one magazine, tens of thousands of Christians were martyred last year. There were problems from Islamic countries and other countries where Christianity is not legal. It did not have to be particularly good or bad Christianity to draw such intense hatred. Some of those who do not conform to Islam got killed.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to say legal my bad on that. But acceptable, agreeable, fits with government ideals, is what I was referring too.

Gracia Singh said:

Well, the Papacy is described as the continuance of the See of Peter. If you check the historical lists of Bishops of Rome, it does, indeed, go all the way back to Peter.

Click to expand...

the list of Bishops at Antioch also go back to Peter and his tenure there predates his move to Rome.

frienden thalord said:

Constantine..............most know he was not really a christain.
but what most don't know is
he had the true christains who refused to conform to his huge church state as one
KILLED..............
yes true believers even way back then that knew
paganism and christanity ought never mix
were persecuted .

Click to expand...

What we their names, exactly? Constantine was not baptized until he was close to death, true.

tstor said:

I believe there have been true believers throughout all ages of the church. That does not mean they were the majority. In fact, they are even a minority today. Churches fall away, absolutely. Many of our historic churches have been lost to the world.

Click to expand...

Just as most of the real true men of God you will never see on TV and never parade around in fancy robes .

Gracia Singh said:

But, see, that's really not true. The Catholic Church, which the Protestant world often now refers to as the "Roman Catholic Church" doesn't seem to have started with Constantine at all. It pre-dates him.

Click to expand...

Says who? The Catholic Church is the source of that information. You will not find Catholic church buildings until post Constantine.

Gracia Singh said:

He may be called that within Orthodoxy, but in lists of the Apostles appearing in the NT itself, Peter always comes first. That has to mean something....

Click to expand...

It may mean that he was the most highly regarded of the Apostles.

That, however, doesn't mean that any special authority or power went with it, and certainly not that hundreds of other men were authorized to act as the infallible head of the worldwide church simply because they also became bishops in Rome centuries later.

2Timothy2:15 said:

Says who? The Catholic Church is the source of that information. You will not find Catholic church buildings until post Constantine.

Click to expand...

It is from the word katholikos ("according to the whole") that the word catholic comes. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word catholic, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation Catholic Church with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the 1st century.

Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia

St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)

Sola1517 said:

Well gosh, 1500 years of tradition from the other two churches and we just got it right 500 years ago.

Click to expand...

Can't play for both teams.