Differences in Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches

[ebnera2]

I have to Correct Father John. At the time of Constantine there were only four centers if we are to defined them as Patriarchates in the following order of seniority: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Constantinople became a Patriachate only after the condemnation of Eutyches some 135 years after, moment which the Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria split from their brothers on the issue of monophysitism and much misconceptions on Christ natures

[Frankoji]

Council of Chalcedon, Nicea, til 1000 are cause of miseducation about Jesus and God.

Hole of 12 saints, about reincarnation and vegetararianism.

[russianamerican1]

and the differrence is???????????? what common tell me

[secutorclaudius]

@russianamerican1 catholics believe in purgatory, which is nowhere mentioned in the bible. they pray to saints, who were once men, thus making false idols. this, in my eyes, negates jesus' sacrifice, since he is supposed to be the ONLY mediator between us and god (that to me is the biggest offense). they light those "prayer candles", like pagans. they put statues in their yards of saints and mary and what not. the first churches were orthodox, established by the apostles. there u go.

[akkafietje]

@trueorthodoxfaith What you mentioned is the difference between Protestant and Catholics. And you are 100% correct. Here they say that R. catholic = same as orthodox.

That's not true R. Catholics believe in purgatory, orthodox don't. But both of them pray to saints. If I am correct the orthodox did not have an inquisition, like R.C. church who killed thousands of protestants. Both churches believe in transubstantiation.

Orthod believe more in traditions, a priest without a beard is already bad

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje every "orthodox" sect is autocephalous. The "orthodox" sects did not start until 1054 when Michael Cerularius left Rome.

"He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it,as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd." St.Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 428)

"The Holy Roman Church is senior to the other churches not by virtue of any synodal decrees, but obtained the primacy from Our Lord in the words of 'Thou art Peter.." Pope Gelasius (A.D. 492)

[akkafietje]

@PapalSoldier Me is told that the orthodox church did not have an Inquisition, like the RC church had.

But still I wonder what is the difference. Any way they both do not made their doctrine from the bible, but on traditional base

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje The Inquisition is not what you think it is. I'm going send a private message explaining this.

[akkafietje]

@PapalSoldier I know exact what the R.C. inquisition was, but my question is did the orthodox have the same ? yes or no

[adamantis4657]

@akkafietje: NO we had NO INQUISTION - WE DID NOT KILL witches etc...

[akkafietje]

@adamantis4657 Thank you that's clear. What about purgatory, praying to idols and transubstantiation

[adamantis4657]

@akkafietje

1.) Purgatory - well it is a bit difficult to explain: No we do not know Purgatory. But we also know of the mediate state of the souls before the Last Judgement. So many souls have to suffer in Hades for their sins but through the prayer of the church, etc they can be freed from Hades. But we do not know a purification through a purifying fire. But there is purification after death.

2.) IDOLS - I do not know IDOLS? Do u mean ICONS? ICONS ARE NOT IDOLS

[akkafietje]

@adamantis4657 do you believe after dying, humans can change your destination yes or no. Your church has thousands of idols ! Mary, Peter, John etc.

Transubstantiation, it are only the catholics and orthodox believe in a real transfer from wine to blood. No protestant church does. How would you defend it ?

In your answers, I observed, they only thing different with the R.C. is there was no inquisition

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje St.John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

St.John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood.---

[akkafietje]

@PapalSoldier It is only symbolical the flesh and blood of Jesus, it seems you will eat our Lord like cannibals do. Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven. So here is Jesus bread ! in : 54 is it the flesh of Jesus.

Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood.... Is this cup literally the new testament, or is it a symbol what represent the start of the n.t. ? Why is this symbolic while the bread = literally ????

[akkafietje]

@PapalSoldier When Jesus offer them "His flesh" Jesus was still alife so what was changed in bread ???

Yes, we are obliged to eat his flesh and blood, but of course it is not real flesh and blood. It is the symbol that he died for us.

That several disciples left Him is normal, because they even did not understand the symbol, like you .

Jesus did never call people back, he told his story and you may believe, or leave

Can you not taste the difference between fless and bread ???

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje St.John 6:23-53 - a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home.

[akkafietje]

@PapalSoldier one by one ,Answer my question about the cup= new testament ?

Did you ever taste the differences between bread and flesh, meat ???

Between blood and wine ?

Of course it's symbolic.

Do you also believe that Jesus destroyed Salomo's temple and resurrected it in 3 days.

During the last 2000 years people have eaten more than 100 000 bodies of Christ

I agree that the Jews though is was litterery, as well as the "blood" as the temple story !

But important is what we know today.

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding--

[akkafietje]

@PapalSoldier The word "phago" is not the problem the symbolic flesh is the item.

We eat the bead not spiritual, but in the way we eat every thing,

the question is What do we eat.

“How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Exact I ask you the same question specialy : at that moment Jesus was still alife.

Before you come with a lot of new stuff , please answer first this questions , and then we continue with new proofs

God bless,

Akka

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje This is the same question that the Jews asked after Jesus told them that the bread that He will give for the life of the world is His flesh. In John’s Gospel, chapter 6, we see the Jews asking each other “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Now, here is an important consideration for our Protestant friends. Scripture tells us that God cannot deceive us (see for example Titus 1:2).

[akkafietje]

@PapalSoldier Jesus did not deceive anybody, but they did not understand.

The same with the destroying of the temple, even his disciples did not understand.

That does not mean that Jesus is deceiving them. Jesus did often speak in parables in order that only a "selected" group could understand, that's not deceiving.

It seems to me that His 11 disciples did really understand the symbol, because they did not asked more questions

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje If the Jews were deceived in their interpretation of Jesus’ words, Jesus would have corrected them. As God, it would be impossible for Jesus’ to leave the Jews in their erroneous opinions, for God cannot deceive us, especially on a matter of salvation. So what did Jesus do? He didn’t correct them. Instead, He confirmed their literal interpretation that He would give them His flesh to eat.

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje Jesus responds by swearing an oath as He says “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh--

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”

[akkafietje]

@PapalSoldier Correct , to be one with Christ gives us eternal life. So symbolic we "eat" Him. Without His sacrificed flesh we could not be saved

But did I not ask you twice, first to response the open questions before you start new stuff.

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje 1 Corinthians 11:27 "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."

[akkafietje]

@PapalSoldier I asked you 3 times polite , please answer first my questions before you start new stuff.

I can also start with new items so we will never solve the problem.

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje I already provided Scripture, your going against 2000 years of Church history.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ..." St.Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 110)

[akkafietje]

@PapalSoldier I will not discus who's church is older because that is irrelevant.

I want to debate which church has the true.

You could not answer: if the wine is literally Jesus blood, why is the cup not changed literally into new covenant.

When Jesus told the disciples, he was still a life ! How could he already change His body to bread. Start now first to answer this and then we continue

[vasilyjc1955]

@akkafietje At the Mystical Supper, Luke 22:19-20-And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them saying, This is MY Body which is given to you, this do in remembrance of Me. Likewise also the cup after supper saying, This cup is the new testament in My Blood which is shed for you. The bread and wine are transformed in the Mystery into the Body and Blood of our Lord.

[akkafietje]

@vasilyjc1955 Correct the bread was the symbol of his body.

The problem is that your guys consider it as literary. The believe the piece of bread is literary, meat.

Like the cup is symbolically the new covenant. Other wise there should be a text on that cup.

Of course it is symbolic we are not cannibals, the firsts time, how could they eat Him while he was still alive ?

And BTW can you not taste the difference between meat and bread

The symbolic eating of Him means we can not live without Him

[ebnera2]

@akkafietje I think you have to do some homework of Christian history. Your view is at odds with both the literal terms of the bible and belief sof the eucharist by Christians during the 1500 years time before the reformation. Test your claims don't be lazy.

[akkafietje]

@ebnera2 I have only one source " the word of God " I don't care about traditions if they are not in accordance with the bible. People do change but His word is fixed

[akkafietje]

@akkafietje Did "orthodox" serbian soldiers rape bosnian muslims 13 years ago in Yugoslavia ?

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje ---of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje ---Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

St.John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation----

[PapalSoldier]

@akkafietje ---- Why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.

This is the ONLY time when God The Son was speaking and people get up and leave.

[adamantis4657]

@akkafietje: Transubstantiation:

Well, this is a LATIN TERM but we also believe - LIKE ALL CHRISTIANS - that the BREAD is the TRUE FLESH and the Wine is the TRUE BLOOD of CHRIST.

All christians believe that DOCTRINE: Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Oriental Orthodox, etc...

Only some protestant Sects do not!

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: WRONG.

1.) Not every Orthodox Church is autocephalous - AUTOCEPHALY is only given to some CHURCHES. Autocephaly means to HAVE A LEADER - PATRIARCH.

That does not mean that they are seperated from the others. It only means that this Local Church is worthy to have a PATRIARCH.

2.) ALL Orthodox CHURCHES ARE ONE - ONE CHURCH all in COMMUNION with earch other. The HIGHEST of ALL PATRIARCHS is his ALLHOLINESS - the Patriarch of Constantinopel. ONE HEAD

[PapalSoldier]

@adamantis4657

“The Roman Church, which is the head of all the churches.” Victor of Vita (ca. 485 A.D.) "Peter has spoken by Leo; let him be anathema who believes otherwise!"- Council of Chalcedon

“Rome the See of Peter, which has been made to the whole world the head of the pastoral office.” St. Prosper of Acquitaine (450 A.D.)

Michael Cerularius started the Greek "orthodox" sect in 1054 rejecting Papal authority.

if all bishops are equal why aren't you arian?

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: LOL

I did not say that ALL BISHOPS are equal - and even would this be - this has nohting to do with ARIANISM.

Because ARIANISM was destroyed by the HOLY FATHERS and later on the 1. Ecumenical Synod and not by the Popes.

How often have I told u that the Popes did not play an important rule in the great Synods?

There is no Papal authority - and NEVER WAS. That is why ROME has seperated from ALL APOSTOLIC THRONES.

[PapalSoldier]

@adamantis4657 "not by the popes?" typical anti-Catholic liar, who is ignorant of Church history. "We cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome." St.Peter Chrysologus (A.D. 449)

NOTHING was done without the approval of The Bishop of Rome.

“You know that the Synodal laws have it that if any doubt arise in matters pertaining to the state of the church, we have recourse to the Bishop of the Roman Church as to our head.” St.Avitus (ca. 495 A.D.)

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier. WRONG

Study the history of the Councils - many were held without the POPE or EVEN AGAINST THE POPE. The 5th Ecumenical Synod was HELD AGAINST THE POPE.

St. Meletios was not in communion with Rome - but NO ONE CARED. He presided the Ecumenical Synod. ETc..

Go and study again u will see that I am righr: MYSTICALCITY

[PapalSoldier]

@adamantis4657 1. No teaching was EVER approved without The Pope.

2. The Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) became Ecumenical when Pope Leo approved the creed. (shows how much you know)

3. The 5th Ecumenical council needed the Pope's approval. 4. "And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place." Lucentius, speaking of the heretic Dioscorus. Council of Chalcedon A.D 451 First Session

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: WRONG - I repeat myself: MANY COUNCILS WERE APPROVED without the POPE and even AGAINST THE POPES.

1.) NO - it was and is ECUMENICAL WITHOUT THE POPE - Pope Leo as Patriarch of the WEST wrote a letter to the Fathers of the Council through his legates. The Holy Fathers EXAMINED HIS LETTER very carefully and they said it is Orthodox teaching and it was ACCEPTED-

AFTER IT WAS EXAMINED - it was accepted by the Holy Fathers because it was ORTHODOX and not because it was from Pope

[PapalSoldier]

@adamantis4657 1. How did he send a letter if the council was in 381? all the fathers were dead. Pope Leo approved it in 451. If it was Ecumenical before he approved it then what did the council fathers examine? hahahahahahaha WOW.

2. Again Pope Leo approved of the creed and it became Ecumenical.

3. The Council of Ephesus didn't even know of the council of Constantinople of 381.

4. The Ecumenical Councils called The Bishop of Rome, "The Head of The Church"

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: U are silly:

1.) The letter was EXAMINED if it WAS ORTHODOX - read the Documents of the Council. Some even did not like the letter.

2.) Ha? I do not even understand what u mean? ALL FATHERS have known the previous Councils. So what are u talking about?

3.) HEAD OF THE CHURCH - a honory title - NOTHING MORE. Every Patriarch is a HEAD - AUTO-KEAPHAL - means having a HEAD as leader = PATRIARCH.

Rome had primacy - so he could have been called: HEAD OF THE CHURCH.

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: HEAD OF THE CHURCH

Those titles were PROCCLAIMED by LATIN LEGATES - the other Fathers did not resist these HONORY TITLES.

Many other churches also were honored with such TITLES: Jerusalem THE MOTHER OF ALL CITIEs - as one Ecumenical Synod said. Constantinopel the ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH = PATRIARCH OF THE WHOLE WORLD.

But this is not PAPSIM

[PapalSoldier]

@adamantis4657 hahahahahaha, You say legates? 500 bishops at a council calling The Bishop of Rome, "The Head of The Church" This was at a SESSION. not a writing.

"He has said that 'there He is in the midst of them," must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will." -Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451.

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier WRONG

Because when u study the Documents of the Council (have u ever?) u wills see that those TITLES were procclaimed by the LATIN LEGATES that were present.

Well there is no problem with "Head of the Church" when referring to the ancient Popes - as I told u. EVERY PATRIARCH IS A HEAD of a local Church.

But that does not mean that this Patriarch is INFALLIBLE or the RULER OVER the LOCAL Church - he is only the first AMONG and not OVER

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: U NEED EDUCATION _ 5th ECUMENICAL SYNOD:

The 5th Ecumenical Council was neither convoked nor presided over by the Bishop of Rome, although he was present in the city where the council was held. The meetings were held not only without him, but AGAINST him. Nevertheless, the decision of this council was considered canonical, and the Pope himself, after some objections, arising out of his ignorance of certain facts, submitted to it.

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier. St Meletios not in Communion with Rome - but NO ONE CARED:

For a long time there had been a schism at Antioch. That city had two bishops, Meletius and Paulinus. The Bishop of Rome was in communion with the latter, and consequently regarded Meletius as schismatic, which nevertheless did not prevent his being regarded as a saint by the Western churches as well as those in the East. The 2.Ec. Council was therefore under the presidency of a bishop who was not in communion with Rome

[PapalSoldier]

@adamantis4657 "no one cared?" are you 6? The council of Constantinople was approved by Pope Leo. "Peter has spoken by Leo; let him be anathema who believes otherwise!" Council of Chalcedon.

And what's with St.Meletus? you talking to kabane? Rome is the one that questioned him, not the other way around.

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: WRONG

Can u read? The Fathers of the COUNCILS CAREFULLY EXAMINED Leo's letter if it may be orthodox or not. AFTER SOME TIME and STUDY - they accepted the letter as being ORTHODOX DOCTRINE and they said: Peter has spoken through Leo - BECAUSE IT WAS ORTHODOX CONFESSION.

This was common in the early church: When St. Cyrill destroy the heresy of Nestorius the Fathers procclaimed: PETER HAS SPOKEN THROUGH CYRILL etc.

St. Cyrill never was a Pope! THIS IS NOT PAPISM

[PapalSoldier]

@adamantis4657 St.Cyril was the representative for Pope Celestine at the Council of Ephesus. Peter has spoken through cyril? LIAR, DELUSIONAL. ANTI CATHOLIC

"Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we

therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have

yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill

what is fitting for the children." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.

SEE THAT??? ENTIRE COUNCIL To Pope Leo

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: WRONG

When u study the Documents of the COUNCIL of Ephesos u will see that St. Cyrill was not the representative of the Pope.

WHY SHOULD St. CYRILL OF ALESANDRIA be the representative of the POPE? NO - he was speaking as BISHOP of ALEXANDRIA and as ZEALOT for CHRIST's CHURCH.

YES - PETER HAS SPOKEN THROUGH CYRILL - ORTHODOX CONFESSION.

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: LOL always funny to read your quotes:

WE BEG U TO HONOR OUR DECISION - do u see that the Fathers of the COUNCIL tell HIM:

HONOR OUR DECISIONs and KEEP PEACE.

Do u see that they told him to be SUBJECT TO THEIR DECISION? Why they have writtne to the Pope because he was not prestent at the Council. He was a Patriach of the West at it was due that he may be informed.

ALL PATRIARCHS were INFORMED OF DECISIONS and even ELECTIONS.

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: Again for dummies:

St. Meletios WAS NOT IN COMMUNION WITH ROME - He was in SCHISM WITH ROME. Rome did not accept him

But the Fathers of the 2. Ecumenical Council DID NOT CARE WHAT ROME THINKS. He presided the 2. Ecumenical SYNOD - without ROME.

[PapalSoldier]

@adamantis4657 Constantinople was approved by Pope Leo. The council Fathers of Ephesus and Chalcedon didn't even accept Constantinople of 381 until Pope Leo approved it. Pope Damasus didn't know if Meletius was Catholic, once the council was over and they had the scripts, Rome knew he was Catholic not arian. Do you have a letter of him rejecting Rome's authority? Rejecting Pope Damasus? Rome questioned him, not the other way other around.

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier. WRONG

U are a dreamer. NO ONE ever NEEDED the approaval of the Pope - NO ONE. The Holy Fathers even procclaimed CANON 28 - even when LEO protested - and NO ONE CARED.

AGAIN: St. Meletios was in SCHISM with ROME - and was in Communion with another Bishop. BUT NO ONE CARED IF ROME was against him or not. NO ONE CARED.

He was the "president" of the Council and NOT IN COMMUNION WITH ROME - and NO ONE CARED.

[PapalSoldier]

@adamantis4657 HAHAHAHHAHAH CANON 28.

"Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was RESERVED for the

authority of YOUR Blessedness. Therefore, let YOUR Holiness know for certain

that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself

bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness." ---Patriarch Anatolius

of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of

Chalcedon).

LIAR, I hope everyone reads this.

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: LOL - again sooo funny to read your quotes (because u don't know them)

CANON 28 WAS PROCCLAIMED and the Popes accused the Patriarch of Constantinopel to be the "creators" of that Canon.

The Patriarch out of love and respect wrote a letter to the Pope and told him, that it was not him who wanted that CANON but the Fathers of the Council have decided .

What a great Patriarch Anatolius full of humilty and humbleness!

[PapalSoldier]

@adamantis4657 "The Apostolic Throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat YOUR Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion." (Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo)

all bishops equal right?

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: U are a fool!

As I told u the Pope was the Patriarch of the ENTIRE WEST - so all BISHOPS from WEST were subject to ROME.

So when there was a question - the LOCAL BISHOP had to decide - the LOCAL BISHOP of all the WEST - was the BISHOP OF ROME.

U are silly!

[PapalSoldier]

@adamantis4657 Then why did a Eastern bishop need Pope Leo's approval? Why was nothing ever done without Rome's approval? come on now, your embarrassing yourself. "We cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome."

St.Peter Chrysologus (A.D. 449)

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: St. PETROS CHRYSOLOGUS:

was from Constantinopel or from the Western Church ha? Are u not able to read or do u like to repeat yourself?

Petros Chrysoslogus was from WEST and therefore HIS BISHOP was the BISHOP of ROME - and the HIGHEST AUTHORITY FOR HIM.

Like a Bishop in Russia can not judge without THE PATRIARCH OF RUSSIA and his SYNOD.

This is very clear!

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier:

And also SOMETIMES when there were discussions and quarrels or when a Bishop thought that he was judged not righetous - they begged Rome to help them.

This is also today the case when there is a Problem in a Local Church - they ask the Patriarch of Constantinopel for help or assistence.

But that does not mean Papism or that the Pope had any special authority. But he was a Patriarch and therefore he perhaps could help.

[PapalSoldier]

@adamantis4657 o ok, so according to you, one bishop keeps asking other bishops for help, even though they all have equal authority. Yup, this makes sense.

*FACEPALM*

"The Apostolic Throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who

are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, GIVE ME BACK the

dignity of MY EPISCOPATE and communion WITH YOURSELF, by letters from you to

my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion." (Eusebius of Doryleum

to Pope Leo)

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: POPE LEO was not needed! CAN U READ?

Again - why are u repeating always the same stuff?

The Apostolic THRONE sounds good - BUT THERE ARE MANY APOSTOLIC THRONES .

The Pope could intervene but thats all - because it is a common RULE that NO BISHOP or PATRIARCH can judge in another LOCAL CHURCH - this is the teaching of ALL COUNCILS - only when Heresy or a very very unjust decision was made. Than perhaps also another Patriarch or Bishop can intervene.

IN VAIN

[RettaDottrina]

@adamantis4657

Crisologo was actually of Greek origin, his name infact is greek not latin.

But he was bishop in the West, but his nationality was in the East.

I'm Italian, so I know.

[adamantis4657]

@RettaDottrina: Hy,

St. Petros Chrysologus was from the West. The Name "Chryso-logos" means GOLDEN-WORD because he wrote many excellent sermons etc.

Like Chrysostomus that means the Golden-mouth because he was such an excellent Father.

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: Patriarch Anatolius called the Pope YOUR BLESSEDNESS?

Yes, and even more. This was common in the early church. Like it is today in the Orthodox Church:

His ALLHOLINESS the ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPEL - the ARCH-THRONE.

His BEATITUDE the Patriarch and POPE of ALL EAST - the Patriarch of ALEXANDRIA...etc..

St. Gregory the great Pope of Rome called the Patriarchs His FATHERS and MASTERS.

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: I think u are able to understand?

IT WAS WELL KNOWN THAT HE WAS NOT IN COMMUNION WITH ROME - AND NO ONE CARED.

Would the Holy Fathers have believed in PAPISM - they would have cared. BUT NO ONE CARED.

Like in THOUSEND other CASES: BECAUSE ROME was not that IMPORTANT. Yes- it was an apstolic THRONE and also Much honored. But the Popes were not infallible or RULERS over the whole Church - THIS IS NONSENSE. And everyone can see that when studing the documents.

[adamantis4657]

@PapalSoldier: The RCC:

is HERETIC and SCHISMATIC and UNCANONICAL. There is NO ORTHODOX BISHOP IN ROME yet. Because the Bishop of ROME has fallen into HERESY and under ANATHEMA.

PAPISM is a heresy and foreign to the CHURCH FATHERS like many catholic things: ORGANS, PEWS etc...

Mysticalcity - Papasoldier! LOL

[ethi0nz]

@trueorthodoxfaith I agree either all the way Orthodox or not Orthodox at all! I liked the video though..we should educate eachother more!

[EvertonFooty]

@trueorthodoxfaith - I was at an Orthodox Church in Romania and the priest had a shaved beard, but his dress was standard Orthodox and of course he had a cross. But yes, I thought he was Catholic as well, very unorthodox dress.

[HetmanWojtek]

@trueorthodoxfaith

We have the same problems in the West. In the late 60's Catholic priests stopped wearing cassocks and some even dress in lay clothes. Most parishes have gone through iconoclastic revolutions and destroyed all religious art.

The altar was replaced with a table facing the people, altar girls, communion in the hand, ripping out altar rails, rock/pop music instead of Gregorian chant, and the New Order of the Mass is almost identical to "protestant liturgies"

[trueorthodoxfaith]

@HetmanWojtek I know this, as having been to Catholic weddings and funerals. To be critical. I found these services lacking in holiness and mystery.There exists big differences between a Catholic Mass and an Orthodox Liturgy.

[crimini001]

@Lilprofessor1740 Chick Publications is not credible. They've been debunked so many times, I'm surprised they're still in business! Whether or not the Franco quote is true, his statements do not reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church, any more than Harold Camping's teachings represent the teachings of Evangelical Christianity.

[marmolejomarc]

@RepentCatholics what do you call your dad JACK? you really have an elementary belief of the scriptures my poor protestant cousin..

[pl1778]

I doubt it, no Orthodox priest is beardless, this has to be a Roman cleric guest speaker, although why they would invite him I haven't a clue. Personally, the old calendar is pagan and so is the new calendar, time is relative and I seriously doubt that even Old Calendarists such as yourself believe that the Julian Calendar was inspired by anything Holy. We've already added two months to the original Julian Calendar since then anyway.

[adamantis4657]

@pl1778: LOL - many modernist priest do not have beards! Go and look around in USA.

1.) The Old Calendar is the Calendar of the Holy Fathers and the Orthodox Church

2.) The New Calendar is under ANATHEMA by more than 20 Pan-Orthodox Synods

3.) The Calendar is very important for the Church or the church year

4.) Who has told u that I am an oldcalendarist?

5.) U have innovated and destroyed the unity in celebration - that is a horrible sin.

[pl1778]

This is obviously a Roman Catholic cleric, this is the RCC position that he is spouting out. He is clean shaven, and there are NO clean shaven Eastern Orthodox Christian priests. I suggest having this video removed?

[adamantis4657]

@pl1778: Perhaps HE IS ONE OF THOSE MODERNIST PRIEST OF AN ORTHODOX CHURCH IN THE USA. Many parishes are very modernised there!

Sad but true - many such parishes HAVE LOST HOLY ORTHODOXY!

It is not easy to be orthodox and so many give up and INNOVATE AND become MODERNISTS

[6MemoryOfForever9]

@adamantis4657 weren't you accusing the Catholics of being infest by modernism on another video? Then your church is infested by the same thing now?

[adamantis4657]

@6MemoryOfForever9:

1.) I am not sure if this is an orthodox parish - or a byzantine catholic

2.) Of course there are modernised "PSEUDO-orthodox" parishes - especially in USA. This is the outcome of Ecumenism. They tried to copy the RCC

3.) "My CHURCH" - does not accept such things - because I am a member of ROCA. Not all that is called Orthodox is really orthodox - ESPECIALLY IN USA.

But even this modernism can not be compared to RCC modernism!

[Anubismasi]

@pl1778 Yes there are. You obviously have little experience beyond your neighborhood. How very sad. I shall pray for you.

[RettaDottrina]

@MrDrmonja

Well translated "many" with "all" in the Eucharist, is a serious error that the Catholic Church should corrected.

Even Anglicans use the precise words of the Bible, in the Eucharist, and they do not have a true Eucharist.

[newtochrist]

@MrDrmonja yes , you remind me of sedivicantist person who told me , the Catholic church is wrong because they miss translate some words in the mass from latin to english

I mean for heaven sake , if Jesus will come one day and will throw you in hell fire because you miss translate some words!

anyway , I wish the Church will united Again

[ChristianEastern]

@MrDrmonja

Never; Scratch the surface and see vast difference

[XDragasesX]

....he has to be Uniate....no way he is Orthodox...no wedding ring either....you have to watch they go around like ravenous lions.....

[mattporcelli]

I didnt hear him mention 1 difference? Which is good, but makes the title of the video confusing.

[adamantis4657]

@mattporcelli: He himself is not orthodox - because orthodox priests are not allowed to shave their beards, to cut their hair, also he wears no cassock....etc

He himself should become orthodox first! LOL

[333kostas]

@adamantis4657 Right...

[333kostas]

@adamantis4657 True man!!!...But first time i see an Orthodox priest without long hair etc...Here in Greece there arent priests like him:O

[akkafietje]

@adamantis4657 Perhaps God loves him, and that's more importantt

[adamantis4657]

@akkafietje: God can not love him when he is an APOSTATE!

[akkafietje]

@adamantis4657  Does God know that already ?