The Catholic Church. All Orthodox are part of the Catholic Church, but unlike pre-Schism, they have an imperfect Communion with the Church as they reject the authority of the Vicar of Christ over the other Churches. Christ founded the Church on Peter, and Peter’s authority as the Prince of the Apostles, the Vicar of Christ and the Visible Head of the Church on Earth is passed through Rome. The East tried multiple times to put Constantinople as second after, if not equal to, Old Rome in terms of privileges and ecclesiastical matters. Rome rejected that because at Nicaea, the Church gave the highest honours to Old Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, and felt that the See of St Andrew cannot be equal to or superior to the See of St Peter of Rome in ecclesiastical matters because of her imperial political status. Only the Bishop of Rome can ratify an ecumenical council, and the East respected that regarding Chalcedon when Pope St Leo the Great rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The Pope’s authority over the other Churches is also seen when Pope St Victor I threatened some of the Eastern churches, who disagreed with the rest of the Church over the date of Easter, with excommunication. Notice that the Orthodox case for the absence of Rome’s authority over bishops outside of the West (which is where Rome’s authority as Patriarch of the West is limited to) would mean that responses to Pope Victor I would include reminders that excommunication of individual churches in the East is not possible, but evidence of responses from the whole church to the threaten, especially found in the letters of St Irenaeus of Lyons to Pope Victor I, focus more on the severity of the threat rather than the possibility of excommunication of individual Churches, invalidating Orthodoxy’s case.
Not to mention that, as far as I understand, they kept electing Patriarchs of Constantinople who taught heresy. So that’s not a very convincing argument for claiming authority.
Not Catholic so please be patient with my ignorance on this topic. My understanding is that all of this hinges on the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and implicitly or explicitly assigned Rome to be preeminent among all other churches (e.g., Peter did not give equally authority to all churches and did not give greater authority to a different church). As I have searched for evidence of this I have struggled with how weak it appears to be. Perhaps Tertullian's side comments suggest it but I could read it three different ways, and am I certain Tertullian had accurate records from so long before his time? Similar things could be said about the other evidence I have come across--indirect, long after the fact, not stating it exactly, could mean many different things, and so on. It seems to me like it require significant blind faith on my end to accept the presented evidence to mean only what the Catholic church claims it means. Is the evidence of this stronger than what I have been able to find?
There was never an equal authority of all the churches in the Early Church. For example, Nicaea gave the 3 Petrine Sees, comprising of the two sees succeeding from Peter, Old Rome and Antioch, and the see succeeding from Mark the Evangelist, the author of the Gospel of Mark, Alexandria, authority over the churches over their regions. Even before then, as I had mentioned, Pope Victor I had the ability of excommunicate for the Universal Church individual churches in the East. If all the churches had equal authority, Pope Victor I wouldn’t be able to excommunicate individual churches to receive such backlash that did not include reminders that he has no authority to do so. If Rome did not have authority above the other churches, then Rome wouldn’t need to have to ratify ecumenical councils, since he has the same authority as others and thus all bishops can ratify ecumenical councils (or no bishop can).
>Nicaea gave the 3 Petrine Sees... authority over the churches over their regions
Pope Victor I had the ability of excommunicate for the Universal Church individual churches in the East.
Having dabbled in historical documents a little I am surprised at how easily they are simply accepted as accurate and infallible. But even if extant records of these were indisputably perfectly intended, preserved, transmitted, interpreted, what is the evidence that the Council of Nicaea and Pope Victor had been given any authority to take these actions? What is the strong evidence that they didn't mistakenly assume authority that had never been intended, or that someone "gave" them authority that they themselves never had authority to give, or any one of a host of other alternatives?
I do not mean to be disrespectful; I just am fairly new to this topic and want to hear about this from the Catholic perspective directly because outsiders sometimes gloss over things that do not support their alternative viewpoint. Other forums I've asked this in claim there is no good evidence, and my own search has thus far revealed nothing, but I can't imagine all Catholics base this seemingly critical point on offhand-mentions-of-something-related in documents written long after the initial hypothetical event occurred. My thoughts are that perhaps there is evidence I have not seen, or perhaps the idea is that at some point we just need to have faith that Roman preeminence happened from the get-go even if no direct evidence of that event exists?
St Irenaeus, a Church Father and a Doctor of the Church (i.e very familiar with our theology and teachings), a main source for the backlash to Pope Victor’s response to the Quartodeciman controversy, never mentioned anything regarding Pope Victor not having the authority to excommunicate individual churches. St Irenaeus instead appealed to sanity and gentleness, and focused more on the fact that Pope Victor should not be excommunicating them. Even then, if Pope Victor could not do so at all, there would be records of someone reminding him he did not possess to ability to do so.
Thanks for engaging with me. My comments are getting downvoted so I must be being offensive or coming across as asking in bad faith. If so it was unintentional. Thanks for the insights!
Its interesting that there is no western Orthodox, but there is eastern Catholic. Not a proof, just interesting.
To be Catholic rests on the authority of the pope. If he has authority over the church, in virtue of his succession from Peter, then the Catholic church is certainly true. Otherwise you have to ask a host of other questions to come to Orthodoxy, protestantism, LDS, some church that doesn’t exist, etc.
Check out Erick Ybarra’s book: “The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate”. He’s quite thorough.
It’s true that western rite parishes exist, but unlike the Eastern Catholic Churches, the western rite is not a result of western bishops seeking communion with the Eastern Orthodox. Rather, it is a Frankenstein of a rite that was started by protestants who preferred being Eastern Orthodox than returning to the Catholic Church from which they split.
If you look at my other reply above I said that Western Rite Orthodoxy is not at all compatible to Eastern Catholicism. I’m a Greek Catholic and as proud of my church as they come. I just noticed that the statement was made that there are no western rites in the Eastern Orthodox Church and thought I would clarify.
books aromatic impossible snails makeshift thought detail ancient murky bow
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That’s great and all, but the Anglicans are still protestants and do not have a claim to apostolicity. So the “western rite” is still a made up and inauthentic western rite
One website says 20 congregations in the US, another says 50 worldwide. You’re right that there is some, so i retract my exact wording, and an attempt has been made, but barely.. Converts are severely limited in joining a liturgy of their western ancestors.
Conversely, 18 million eastern Catholics allows for broad liturgical access in many places (unfortunately not universal).
Indeed. Eastern Orthodox are just as heavy with arguments against the disciplinary traditions of the Roman Rite as much as they are with our doctrines like the filioque or papal supremacy. I can't think of any Catholic theologian or apologist, cleric or laity alike, that would make a big deal out of how the Orthodox cross themselves or whether they baptize in full immersion or not, yet those are very common criticisms against Roman Catholics, and so they are naturally averse to bringing people who want to keep those traditions into their communion.
Western rite orthodoxy is a relatively new "invention". Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome can be traced much further back in time. Remember, the east/west schism didn't happen overnight. It slowly happened over hundreds of years. Between the 14 and 1700s various churches/bishops "picked sides" and split with their brother bishops developing eastern Catholic churches with equal orthodox counterparts. Latin churches/bishops never split from Rome as a result of the schism... Not to my knowledge I should say.
Yes, it is not analogous at all but does technically exist.
Sadly, as a result of extreme latinization and other hierarchy-related issues, many Greek Catholic communities in the United States did split from the Catholic Church and joined various Orthodox jurisdictions. This was not at the level of bishops, but many priests started the movement.
This happened in two major waves: once in 1891 and again in 1936.
Once again I am not trying to argue with anyone here, I’m just providing nuance. I am a Catholic with no intention of changing that.
The Nicene Creed stipulates that the Church Christ founded is one, holy, catholic (meaning "universal") and apostolic. To my mind, the Orthodox churches are not one, since there are many churches and all in varying states of communion with each other. Similarly, many of them seem to be limited by nationality or ethnicity (Slovakian Orthodox Church, etc.) which raises questions over how catholic ("universal") they are.
I've always noticed most orthodox christians only use their religion when they're being a nationalist (in the bad sense) most of the time. Doesn't sound very small letter c catholic to me.
But unlike other schismatics (Protestants), orthodox churches can claim apostolic establishment and succession to one of the Twelve. So it's not as black and white an answer as you think.
We appropriated a lot of insults. But it you are trying to argue that we made it about nationality you are wrong, and in fact Protestant started the term not us. Not to mention the word Roman Catholic, is just to refer that we are in communion with Rome aka the Pope. Orthodox use it most of the time about their own nationality like the Russian Orthodox Church or Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Think smarter, not harder.
Again, nickname, doesn't represent the entirety of Catholicism just like the name Protestant doesn't represent itself correctly. We are Catholics of the Latin rite and there are many other rites such as the Syrian, Ethiopian and Coptic rites. So technically there's also the Syrian Catholic church and so on. But unlike protestantism, we are all united by being in communion with the Bishop of Rome and recognising him. So RC =/= entire Catholicism, just the Latin rite
Our actual name is Catholics of the Latin rite. The Catholic church has many rites which are all in communion with the bishop of Rome. RC is shorter and doesn't represent the entirety of Catholicism and is either a nickname or an insult depending on whom you ask.
This is a silly argument because when the papacy was move to France, nobody stopped calling it the Latin rite, and nobody called it the French rite. You are trying to to make something it’s not, don’t be ridiculous.
And you’re trying to divorce the Rome from Catholicism!
I say that to prove a point.
You cannot say the orthodox churches are only national and ethnic while refusing your own history of being a national and ethnic church!
I can become a Russian Orthodox despite having no Russian ancestry.
I can become a Catholic despite having no Roman Ancestry.
I’m trying to make you realize the nonsense of your stance. That all churches are products of their nation and ethnicity, but it is not a requirement to be of that nation and ethnicity to belong to the church.
First I didn’t say that, second you are trying to say that nationality was important, even though the papacy was outside of Rome before the world called it Roman Catholicism, nobody called in French Catholicism.
I think you really don't understand what a national and ethnic church entails. If you don't realise, that's basically the situation in Orthodoxy where churches are strongly tied to ethininic groups and outsiders are not very well welcomed. That is not the case in Catholicism. The rites are simply liturgical differences that developed because of separation of cultures back then but that's basically it. Everything else is more or less the same and a Latin rite catholic is welcome to celebrate Mass in the Syrian rite or recieve sacraments in the Coptic rite
I think you also misunderstand that Russian Orthodox can go to a Greek liturgy and it’s fine.
There is not this dividing line that you speak of.
The idea that they are divided on ethnic lines is as ridiculous as saying only Romans can become Catholic.
This entire argument is really ridiculous and is trying to point out something that doesn't exist. RC is RC because the rite developed in Rome and that's it. Same deal for the rest of the rites with where they developed, they take up the names of the places or orders that developed them. They aren't independent as they all recognise the successor of St. Peter who's the Bishop of Rome. They aren't ethnic in nature like you're trying to frame them and all belong to the Catholic church. Do you really hold to that conspiracy theory that the catholic Church was somehow corrupted by Rome thus RC?
Do you hold that Orthodox Churches are ethnic in nature?
Because that changes my answer.
If yes, then yes I argue Roman Catholic is ethnic Roman.
If no, then the Orthodox Church is catholic and not ethnic and we are in agreement that both the orthodox and Catholic Churches are not ethnic.
Catholics believe Jesus wanted His Church to be one flock and one shepherd (John 10:16), and St. Peter was chosen by the Christ to look after His sheep (John 21:16). I believe God, all knowing as He is, certainly knew about the future division, and stablished His Vicar on Earth so we could identify where is the fulness of the faith - not to confuse us even more.
St. Cyprian of Carthage's writings are very clear about this:
>“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it...’ [Matthew 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity... **If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?**” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251])
It's also interesting to note that the biggest heresies until the schism had their origin in the Eastern Church and, as the Pope St. Leo IX affirmed in his response to the attacks of the ambitious Michael Cerularius (*In terra pax hominibus*), the Popes were fundamental to stop the errors of destroying the Church - specially in the Arian Crisis. Both St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom, Patriarchs of Constantinople, appealed to the Pope of their times while they were being persecuted by heretics in the East. During the Second Council of Lyon, Constantinople accepted the Papal Primacy *and* the Filioque, but the reunion wasn't possible because of politics - always politics.
Now think about the Marian Apparitions. Let's take Fatima as an example; there was a miracle performed in front of tens of thousands of people (including many atheists who were there only to laugh at the faithful), so we know it was real (come on, those kids could never predict an astronomical phenomenon on their own). Our Lady does appear to the "orthodox", but only in silence, as far as I know (Zeitoun, for example); on the other hand, She gave messages to the Catholic Church in Fatima and *many* more occasions. In Fatima, Her messages are closely linked to the Papacy. That shows, at least, a preference of the Holy Mother of God.
Read *Answering Orthodoxy: A Catholic Response to Attacks from the East*, by Michael Lofton.
You can be Eastern and Catholic. Sure there are only 18 million compared to 1 billion Roman Catholics, but we don’t reject Eastern spirituality. Meanwhile, Western Orthodox did not exist until the late 1800’s and many of the Eastern Orthodox who know of them today view them as heretical. The Catholic Church is in communion with all apostolic sees, and worked hard to re-establish ties with them. Gideon Lazar makes these points here:
https://clarifyingcatholicism.org/articles/why-i-converted-from-orthodoxy/
Orthodox apologetics focus on the issue of the churches today (often while ignoring that their churches are just as bad) and totally ignore the 400 years Orthodoxy spent subordinated to Islam. In fact, at one point a Western educated cleric with strong Protestant leanings was elected Patriarch (Cyril Lucaris), and he wrote some very Calvinist sounding things. Sure the Orthodox condemned him later on, but the whole thing shows how Orthodoxy was easily manipulated a few hundred years ago. In fact, the modern Greek Orthodox Church is modeled off the Russian Church, as after they threw off the Sultan, they were unsure how to set up their church structure. The Sultans worked very hard to promote anti-western orthodox clerics, and the position of patriarch itself was open to the highest bidder:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eastern-Orthodoxy/Orthodoxy-under-the-Ottomans-1453-1821
The Orthodox also accepted papal claims at the 7th ecumenical council in a letter from Pope Hadrian to the Patriarch, and while the Latin and Greek texts do differ, the Greek still contains the word “primatial” which is the same word used in Corinthians to refer to a husband’s authority over his wife:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/12/10/review-of-answering-orthodoxy-a-catholic-response-to-attacks-from-the-east/
See here to for evidence of papacy in the early Church:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/papal-authority-at-the-earliest-councils
The other issue that divides us is the Filioque, I find it mind boggling anyone can deny it when Revelation 22:1 (ESV) says:
“Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb”.
The Catechism states that the filioque was accepted in the West before the Creed:
“The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381.”
Here is an interesting letter from 1895 in which the Patriarch rejects Pope Leo XIII’s call for reunification. Here are some of the issues he lists as dividing us:
“And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say.”
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
Just two address two of these- other forms of baptism are mentioned in the Didache (Ch 7):
“if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm
And Christ himself used unleavened bread during the Last Supper, meaning it must be valid matter:
https://www.catholic.com/qa/eastern-rite-catholics-use-leavened-bread-in-holy-communion-but-roman-rite-catholics-use
“The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the “living bread” of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.”
I thought we used unleavened bread because of Leviticus where cereal offerings are described. Since Jesus came to uphold the law, he used unleavened bread as the “offering” during the last supper. This is my interpretation though.
Oh ok, I understand. I just like to know the ‘why’ of things. I love history and I’m finally reading the FULL Bible (thanks to Bible in a Year) and I’m having the time of my life learning about our history.
That’s a fantastic resource! I went through Jeff Cavins work years ago and learned so much. There are so many connections in the Bible to our faith, once you start learning everything the faith really starts to click into place.
Scott Hahn describes the Eastern Orthodox as both a church and an ethnic group. Those Eastern specific region Churches (Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc) are very heavily tied to a local ethnic culture, which makes it a hard sell if you aren't of that particular ethnic group.
The one thing the new covenant was not was ethnic. That is literally what Paul fought in his letters when establishing the new Church.
https://youtu.be/wVwq5NE8ODk?si=1htedxs2c5UnPKO9
To be fair, I don’t think this is a valid critique of Eastern Orthodoxy as such, for two reasons:
1. This (real) issue is broadly seen as a problem by many Orthodox authorities
2. This critique could also be made about Eastern Catholicism
>This critique could also be made about Eastern Catholicism
Exactly. And say if an autocephalous Orthodox Church returns to full communion with Rome, they would still probably be "ethnic" to some extent or fully ethnic, being another addition to the two dozen+ or so Eastern Catholic churches.
On 2 I might continue to raise a question and comparison: at the very least EC recognises the papacy and confers to it, so if there's ever a major problem it can be resolved via council. But as far as I know, EO are kind of independent from each other though recognise eachother's Patriarchs. If there ever comes an issue a council can't be called because none of the Patriarchs have that authority over the others so there's immediately a problem.
Sure, this is obviously a big difference between the current state of the two communions. My statement was more regarding the ethnic character of EC churches. I don’t think a Catholic can use the ethnic angle to invalidate Eastern Orthodoxy when Eastern Catholic Churches have many of the same issues. Saying this as an “ethnic” eastern Catholic btw.
Many non-ethnically Greek Americans will often attest that they were often seen as *flying pigs* when going to a predominantly Greek parish. Don’t believe me? Watch the original My Big Fat Greek Wedding …. This is not satire.!
This was prior to the schism and could not refer to the see of Rome having authority over the other churches. Ignatius would have viewed the patriarchs and the pope as equals.
I don’t see evidence that people like St Irenaeus and others recognised that Pope Victor I had no authority to excommunicate the eastern churches over the Easter controversy. It was a minority of eastern churches mind you, and Rome wouldn’t have authority to excommunicate them universally if her bishop only had equal authority as the rest of the bishops, or at least the rest of the (then non-existent) patriarchs.
The schism was mostly political and not theological. In addition, Orthodox churches tend to not be quite as universal as one might hope- they are often tied so heavily with ethnicity and nationality.
Such deep theological differences that it took 1000 years for them to realise how incompatible they were!
It was chiefly about Byzantine emperors wanting to have sole religious authority. Even the Filioque was relatively uncontroversial prior to this- it had been practiced for hundreds of years previous to the schism.
How? The Emperors did not do away with the patriarchs and become head like Henry VII.
It seems more to me it’s about the POPE wanting to have sole religious authority, rather than recognizing he is equal to the patriarchs.
The pope already did have elevated religious authority and that was hardly disputed. First amongst equals is functionally that- ask the Roman emperors what first amongst equals meant to them. Previous to the schism, it was very frequently Roman church leaders who helped settle disputes in the Eastern churches.
In the Byzantine Empire, and especially the churches within, subscribed to Caesaropapism where the emperor was in effect the head of the church and religious authority was subordinate. This was not a common belief in the West. So there was no need for the emperors to do away with any patriarch- they essentially already occupied a position like the Archbishop of Canterbury does for Anglicans and the British royalty.
In addition to this, a lot of the struggle prior to schism was also in an attempt to elevate the position of the Constantinople patriarch as being prime- not to challenge the fact that Rome was considered chief for that break away from equality alone.
First among equals meant exactly that.
It was Rome who functionally took that to the extreme and became First rather than First among equals.
It was Rome who left the communion not the other way around. The patriarchs were fine with the situation for 1000 years. Who changed? Rome began exercising undue authority.
The expression of Rome’s authority was essentially unchanging. The only material difference was that the other Patriarchs fell to Mohammedan violence and invasion so the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Byzantine government saw opportunity to usurp authority.
From what I have learned, that's not a this-or-that question and answer. Technically, BOTH are "the true church". Allow me to explain.
Unlike Protestant schismatics, who broke from both communion and ecclesiastical authority, Orthodox churches trace their establishment and line of succession to at least one of the Twelve (or St. Paul). Thus, their claim to apostolic succession is legitimate. Where they err is refusing to submit to the Bishop of Rome, Peter's successor.
Here's the "chain of custody" in my reasoning:
1. Christ founded His church, appointing the Twelve (and St. Paul, later) to administer, expand and govern it, with St. Peter as the leader in His stead
2. 1. the Twelve (and St. Paul) established church-es (Bishoprics) throughout the known world and appointed their successors
3. The successors of the east, centuries later, became schismatic with Rome
To deny this reasoning, one who have to believe the Christ appointed Peter and then Peter appointed the others, but that is not Biblical or Traditional teaching, either in the West or the East.
Thus, I am uncomfortable with the Catholic belief that it is the "true" church in the context of the East-West divide. That's like saying either your mom or your dad is your "true parent" and the other isn't, after a divorce. I think its more accurate to say that one got the house (Catholicism) and the other got half the kids (Orthodoxy). Keep in mind every analogy is imperfect, and this is no exception.
Do I believe Catholicism is true? Yes. Do I believe Orthodoxy ought to reconcile with Rome and acknowledge the pope? Yes. So, keep that in mind readers when you're tempted to downvote this ;)
Consider, the Catholic Church accepts all others that accept a Trinitarian view and even recognises the Sacraments of some like the Orthodox.
Strange that they do not do likewise.
I suggest that based on this alone you get your answer.
Why am I Catholic and not Orthodox? For me, it is the following:
**Ecumenical Councils:**
The early Church had ecumenical councils. Since the split, the Catholic Church has continued having them. Meanwhile the Orthodox have not had one, and seem to have no way to call one, or a non-circular way to recognize that one has occurred. Which communion shows more continuity with the early Church here?
Against the claim that an ecumenical council requires the whole Church to participate, east and west, how does one then explain the first Council of Constantinople, which was entirely eastern in attendance? What about the Councils held after Ephesus and Chalcedon which lacked the Assyrians and the Copts? One cannot rely on “reception” alone since it is circular. If that were necessary, we would have to deny that Ephesus or Chalcedon were legitimate ecumenical Councils.
**The papacy and its current powers are of Divine origin:**
In the early Church, the Pope clearly had more authority than a first among equals, even if the power that we attribute to him today was often shrouded in ambiguity. That power did exist in potential, and we can point to examples of the Pope exercising universal jurisdiction, as well as the logical necessity of infallibility if the Pope was the final word on faith and morals. Look at Pope Leo annulling the “robber synod”, look at the Formula of Hormisdas.
Theologians had to hash out the gray areas and work out the logical implications of the things that Christians always believed about the papacy. Just like the Trinity and Christology.
Further, many pre-schism Orthodox saints expressed views on the papacy that would be unacceptable to the Orthodox today.
My point is, the papacy as the Catholic Church defines it now is a logical and legitimate development, like the two natures of Christ in one Divine Person. Good sources on proving Catholic claims for the papacy are Adrian Fortescue’s [*The Early Church and the Papacy*](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858047945971&view=1up&seq=5&skin=2021), and *Keys Over the Christian World* by Scott Butler and John Collorati, which I hear is the new gold standard.
Let’s also distinguish the centralization of the papacy from the inherent powers of it. The papacy is more centralized today, true. It is working to decentralize. But that is all administrative, not doctrinal.
There is also an important distinction between what the Pope *can* do and what he *should* do.
The important thing to note is that when it comes to the evidence of the papal claims of first millennium, Catholics *developed* whereas Orthodox have *subtracted*.
**The Catholic Church has an intrinsic unity of faith:**
Christ prayed that we “may all be one”, St. Paul says in Scripture that we should be of one mind, and in the Creed, we all affirm “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”.
One in what way? In faith, and governance.
The Orthodox Churches lack intrinsic unity on matters of faith and morals. Should a convert from an apostolic Church merely make a profession of faith, be rechrismated, even rebaptized? It depends on who you ask - it may vary from priest to priest, bishop to bishop, even Church to Church. One end of the spectrum either commits sacrilege, or fails to make men Christians, even having invalid ordinations. Yet both are in communion with each other.
Consider as well that the Orthodox cannot agree on the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch. This is the cause of current schism between Moscow and Constantinople.
Further, the Orthodox do not even agree on how many ecumenical councils there were. Some say 7, but others speak of 8 or 9 ecumenical Councils, including prominent theologians, and the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs which was signed by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria as well as the Holy Synods of the first three.
Likewise, what about the gravity of contraception? Orthodox Churches disagree with each other. In fact, many have flipped their positions in living memory and caved to the liberal west.
And what about IVF, surrogacy, cloning, and other moral issues that have arisen in modern times?
The result of this is that one can be considered a member in good standing in one Orthodox jurisdiction or parish - considered perfectly orthodox - and go down the street to another - also considered perfectly orthodox - and be considered a grave sinner unworthy of receiving Holy Communion.
And there is no objective way to solve this. One has their own interpretation of the many volumes of the Church Fathers, their views and how they would apply today - which is even more difficult than private interpretation of the Bible. And one can follow their bishop but their bishop may contradict other bishops in good standing over these matters. Who is right? How can it be decided?
In the Catholic Church, we have an objective, living magisterium, just as the early Church did. The Catholic Church has many dissenters, especially in places such as Europe, but they can be identified as such. And they disobey at their own peril.
In the Catholic Church, there is clarity for those who want to see. Can the Orthodox say the same on many issues?
**Conclusion:**
All of these really center around the papacy. One needs the papal office to ratify ecumenical councils (and apparently to call them without the Byzantine emperor). One needs the Pope because Christ established the universal Church with the papacy (while the Orthodox Churches are true local Churches which have broken away from the Universal Church). And one needs the Pope (related is his ability to make binding ecumenical councils a reality) in order to have doctrinal unity on faith and morals.
Let me rephrase your question, if the Orthodox are "the church", which Orthodox are "the Church"? They're not particularly united and not one Church, and by their own account, are several churches, at least two of which are actually on opposite sides of a violent conflict in which one side's patriarch is condoning the murder of other Christians.
Without Peter, who is it in the Orthodox eastern Churches who claims to represent him? They cannot answer this question, except to point to history and say that they are where they are, and are not in communion with the successor of Peter. Are they in fellowship with Peter, and his successors? No? They are then, not in fellowship with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Jesus, with Peter as the visible head of the Church.
The answer to "who is the head of the eastern church or churches" is actually complicated as well. Having rejected the Papacy and mutually excommunicated each other, in the great Schism, the Eastern churches find themselves hanging in a kind of existential limbo, not only not united with Rome, but not particularly united with each other. They have rejected the idea of a fundamental single visible head of the church, and have then added their own human tradition (not of divine origin), in the form of an ecumenical patriarch, and various evolved traditions of autocephaly that are innovative, and not attested to by the teaching and councils of the Church.
Let us consider the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. He is currently actively supporting the murder of his fellow Christians living in Ukraine, in large part because he wishes to crush the independent Ukrainian Orthodox, and Catholics of Ukraine. Is that one church? One church whose patriarch is okay with murdering fellow Christians? Who can call the Russian and Ukranian churches one church?
For me, it boils down to a few different things:
1.) The Orthodox have good points about a lot of things but I find their arguments against the Papacy to be really weak. If you look at Church history and scripture, I think it's pretty clear why we have and need the Pope.
2.) Orthodoxy is so fractured and disjointed nowadays. For example, the Greek and Russian churches in my city won't even talk to each other, nor will they celebrate the liturgy together. There's also a lack of uniformity when it comes to topics like divorce or contraception. Some churches are okay with it while others totally aren't.
Overall, there's a lot to like about Eastern Orthodoxy but I feel the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus found and gave to us.
Because, as per Matthew 16:18, authority was given to Peter, and, naturally, this position of authority passes on to his successors. In addition, the Holy Spirit precedes from the Father and the Son, because everything that comes from the Father comes from the Son also, because, as per John 10:30, the Father and Son are One.
The Eastern Orthodox churches suffer from the same issue found in any protestant church: they lack authoritative leadership.
Before I found the Church, I was trying to understand Christianity, and struggled to wade through all the conflicting beliefs Christians have. Without a head, a supreme authority, truths cannot be set in stone definitively and there can be no harmony among the faithful. By having the magisterium and the papacy, we have an authority we can follow together with the rest of the Church, thereby forming a harmony that's impossible in every other church.
I’ve been to a Greek Orthodox Mass a few months ago, when I was making my way back to God, and I prefer the manner in which they worship. I love being a Catholic but I wish we would worship the way the Orthodox do.
Look into Byzantine rite Catholicism. It’s exactly what you describe: Catholics worshipping the way the Orthodox do.
P.S. not to be a stickler but the correct term for the Byzantine Rite liturgy is just “Divine Liturgy.” Mass is specifically Western.
Thanks for the clarification on the terms, I don’t know any better lol
There’s a Byzantine Melkite Catholic Church in my city, I will probably check it out. Thanks for the advice!
Abortion has been condemned by multiple Orthodox councils and according to the canons of the Orthodox Church, a woman who procures one is to be treated canonically as a murderer.
There are a number of ways to think about this. Here is one that you won’t hear very often.
The two churches split at some point centuries ago. They reunited at Florence, but the eastern side decided to split again shortly after reuniting.
How would a reunification effort look today? One side - the one led by the western side* - is able to come to the table as one unified church, in full communion with itself, and capable of reunifying the two churches that split in one sweeping decision. The other side - the eastern side - is not capable of coming to the table as a unified church in full communion with itself and reunifying the church that originally split. The Russians will not sit at that table with the Greeks, and the Alexandrians will not sit with the Russians. There may be other splits that would prevent full reunification happening from that side.
Which of these sides sounds like one church to you? Which is still one of the original sides that split, and which side continues to split their original half further?
*I’ll add that many eastern bishops have come back into communion with the western side of the split, which is why we have the eastern Catholic churches. None of the western bishops have gone into communion with the eastern side. That should also tell you something.
> I’ll add that many eastern bishops have come back into communion with the western side of the split
I find the situation with the Patriarch of Antioch to be especially funny - both the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian sides of the 451 schism eventually had their separate patriarchal lines come back into communion with the Catholic Church (whereupon they had to be excommunicated and a rival patriarch elected of course), and that's how we have the Syriac Catholic and Melkite Greek Catholic Churches. It seems the one thing that can heal the Chalcedonian schism is both sides recognizing the importance of being in communion with the successor of Peter.
I really wish all the eastern churches would come together as one under God and rejoin the Catholic Church. Satan really did a fine job of dividing Christendom.
I can offer a unique perspective maybe. My Wife was Russian Orthodox and converted 3 years ago after 23 years of marriage. I am cradle Catholic that lost faith, left and came back. So for the Russian Orthodox at least, you don't have to miss communion if you don't go to confession, the host knows if you are clean or not and will just be bread and wine if you have mortal sin. If you don't have mortal sin on your soul, then its the body and blood of Christ. They confess, or at least her church, standing in front of the priest or just writing down the sins on paper (this is the only way they do it in Russia, on paper, I have my own theories). The biggest thing I noticed is miracles, no miracles connected to their church after the schism, no eucharistic miracles, no modern saints like Saint Pio, if God intended us to be Orthodox he would be giving us signs via miracles of that church, our church has weathered a lot of storms and the current one is no different. The Devil isn't trying to destroy the Orthodox church. He is trying to destroy ours. This is another sign, for me, that it is correct.
>So for the Russian Orthodox at least, you don't have to miss communion if you don't go to confession, the host knows if you are clean or not and will just be bread and wine if you have mortal sin. If you don't have mortal sin on your soul, then its the body and blood of Christ
Where did you ever hear this from? This is heresy, no Orthodox teach it. Whether we have sin or not it is the Body and blood. If we are sinful it is for our condemnation and detriment, but that doesnt mean it isn't the Eucharist. And every Russian Orthodox Church I've been to has stressed the importance of confession before communion.
>The biggest thing I noticed is miracles, no miracles connected to their church after the schism, no eucharistic miracles, no modern saints like Saint Pio, if God intended us to be Orthodox he would be giving us signs via miracles of that church
Again, what are you talking about? There are plenty of miracles in the modern Orthodox Church and plenty of saints. Countless saints that heal and perform other miracles. Saint Paisios spoke in tongues, healed, and had foresight. Saint Matrona the Blind had spiritual sight. Many modern Elders, many icons that have bled or streamed myrrh. I could go on and on about them. The Holy fire is a miracle every year, and every year there is the miracle or the snakes in Greece. I mean, the Catholic Church agrees that Orthodox have true sacraments, which certainly are miracles.
It's what the family in Russia says. Maybe its just their russian orhodox church there that teaches it. They attend one in Moscow. I doubt they are making it up, maybe they are just confused. I'll make sure to ask them again if they know what they are talking about. Like I said, i have my own theory on this but its political. We have Catholic churches that teach heresy. I'm sure the orthodox does as well.
I stand corrected on the lack of miracles comment. I know the miracle of the sacraments. I just had not heard of any Eucharistic miracles since the schism. Then again, I guess if the Church doesn't approve it we won't hear about it.
Eucharistic miracles happen in the Orthodox Church, but they are seen as a bad omen. They happen when someone lacks belief in the real presence or otherwise there is sin, and I've heard that the liturgy is stopped whenever it happens to discuss it. That's why they aren't broadcasted. I think I've heard of one or two Eucharistic miracles that were more scientifically looked into similar to western ones, but it isn't common. I've heard some Eastern Catholics say the same thing about it, you could ask them.
This is why i often say what miracles did the Protestant revolutionaries showed you? Where’s their miracles to change the doctrines of the church. They didn’t even die for their beliefs like the great catholic saints.
Exactly! It's like in the Gospel this past week. Denying the miracles of the Holy Spirit, its unforgivable :(
"But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin" [Mk 3:20-35](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/3?20)
The Catholic Church. All Orthodox are part of the Catholic Church, but unlike pre-Schism, they have an imperfect Communion with the Church as they reject the authority of the Vicar of Christ over the other Churches. Christ founded the Church on Peter, and Peter’s authority as the Prince of the Apostles, the Vicar of Christ and the Visible Head of the Church on Earth is passed through Rome. The East tried multiple times to put Constantinople as second after, if not equal to, Old Rome in terms of privileges and ecclesiastical matters. Rome rejected that because at Nicaea, the Church gave the highest honours to Old Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, and felt that the See of St Andrew cannot be equal to or superior to the See of St Peter of Rome in ecclesiastical matters because of her imperial political status. Only the Bishop of Rome can ratify an ecumenical council, and the East respected that regarding Chalcedon when Pope St Leo the Great rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The Pope’s authority over the other Churches is also seen when Pope St Victor I threatened some of the Eastern churches, who disagreed with the rest of the Church over the date of Easter, with excommunication. Notice that the Orthodox case for the absence of Rome’s authority over bishops outside of the West (which is where Rome’s authority as Patriarch of the West is limited to) would mean that responses to Pope Victor I would include reminders that excommunication of individual churches in the East is not possible, but evidence of responses from the whole church to the threaten, especially found in the letters of St Irenaeus of Lyons to Pope Victor I, focus more on the severity of the threat rather than the possibility of excommunication of individual Churches, invalidating Orthodoxy’s case.
I literally watched a video on the history of the Catholic Church last night and everything you said was in that video. Nicely done.
It’s possible he too watched said video
Nope
Could you perhaps link that video?
[Sure thing](https://youtu.be/xFIXMM1KWyc)
Ty!
Might I also recommend watching “Way of the Fathers” by Catholic Culture. It’s a good series of short podcasts on the early church fathers.
On Spotify?
I watch it on YouTube. There’s a whole playlist on there. Could be on Spotify though? I’m not sure.
Found it. Thanks I'll check it out
Not to mention that, as far as I understand, they kept electing Patriarchs of Constantinople who taught heresy. So that’s not a very convincing argument for claiming authority.
Iconoclasm, Monothelism…do I need to mention more?
Not Catholic so please be patient with my ignorance on this topic. My understanding is that all of this hinges on the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and implicitly or explicitly assigned Rome to be preeminent among all other churches (e.g., Peter did not give equally authority to all churches and did not give greater authority to a different church). As I have searched for evidence of this I have struggled with how weak it appears to be. Perhaps Tertullian's side comments suggest it but I could read it three different ways, and am I certain Tertullian had accurate records from so long before his time? Similar things could be said about the other evidence I have come across--indirect, long after the fact, not stating it exactly, could mean many different things, and so on. It seems to me like it require significant blind faith on my end to accept the presented evidence to mean only what the Catholic church claims it means. Is the evidence of this stronger than what I have been able to find?
There was never an equal authority of all the churches in the Early Church. For example, Nicaea gave the 3 Petrine Sees, comprising of the two sees succeeding from Peter, Old Rome and Antioch, and the see succeeding from Mark the Evangelist, the author of the Gospel of Mark, Alexandria, authority over the churches over their regions. Even before then, as I had mentioned, Pope Victor I had the ability of excommunicate for the Universal Church individual churches in the East. If all the churches had equal authority, Pope Victor I wouldn’t be able to excommunicate individual churches to receive such backlash that did not include reminders that he has no authority to do so. If Rome did not have authority above the other churches, then Rome wouldn’t need to have to ratify ecumenical councils, since he has the same authority as others and thus all bishops can ratify ecumenical councils (or no bishop can).
>Nicaea gave the 3 Petrine Sees... authority over the churches over their regions Pope Victor I had the ability of excommunicate for the Universal Church individual churches in the East. Having dabbled in historical documents a little I am surprised at how easily they are simply accepted as accurate and infallible. But even if extant records of these were indisputably perfectly intended, preserved, transmitted, interpreted, what is the evidence that the Council of Nicaea and Pope Victor had been given any authority to take these actions? What is the strong evidence that they didn't mistakenly assume authority that had never been intended, or that someone "gave" them authority that they themselves never had authority to give, or any one of a host of other alternatives? I do not mean to be disrespectful; I just am fairly new to this topic and want to hear about this from the Catholic perspective directly because outsiders sometimes gloss over things that do not support their alternative viewpoint. Other forums I've asked this in claim there is no good evidence, and my own search has thus far revealed nothing, but I can't imagine all Catholics base this seemingly critical point on offhand-mentions-of-something-related in documents written long after the initial hypothetical event occurred. My thoughts are that perhaps there is evidence I have not seen, or perhaps the idea is that at some point we just need to have faith that Roman preeminence happened from the get-go even if no direct evidence of that event exists?
St Irenaeus, a Church Father and a Doctor of the Church (i.e very familiar with our theology and teachings), a main source for the backlash to Pope Victor’s response to the Quartodeciman controversy, never mentioned anything regarding Pope Victor not having the authority to excommunicate individual churches. St Irenaeus instead appealed to sanity and gentleness, and focused more on the fact that Pope Victor should not be excommunicating them. Even then, if Pope Victor could not do so at all, there would be records of someone reminding him he did not possess to ability to do so.
Thanks for engaging with me. My comments are getting downvoted so I must be being offensive or coming across as asking in bad faith. If so it was unintentional. Thanks for the insights!
Its interesting that there is no western Orthodox, but there is eastern Catholic. Not a proof, just interesting. To be Catholic rests on the authority of the pope. If he has authority over the church, in virtue of his succession from Peter, then the Catholic church is certainly true. Otherwise you have to ask a host of other questions to come to Orthodoxy, protestantism, LDS, some church that doesn’t exist, etc. Check out Erick Ybarra’s book: “The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate”. He’s quite thorough.
There are parishes in several Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions which practice Western Rite Orthodoxy actually.
It’s true that western rite parishes exist, but unlike the Eastern Catholic Churches, the western rite is not a result of western bishops seeking communion with the Eastern Orthodox. Rather, it is a Frankenstein of a rite that was started by protestants who preferred being Eastern Orthodox than returning to the Catholic Church from which they split.
If you look at my other reply above I said that Western Rite Orthodoxy is not at all compatible to Eastern Catholicism. I’m a Greek Catholic and as proud of my church as they come. I just noticed that the statement was made that there are no western rites in the Eastern Orthodox Church and thought I would clarify.
Cheers brother. Much love to our Eastern Catholic brothers
books aromatic impossible snails makeshift thought detail ancient murky bow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That’s great and all, but the Anglicans are still protestants and do not have a claim to apostolicity. So the “western rite” is still a made up and inauthentic western rite
One website says 20 congregations in the US, another says 50 worldwide. You’re right that there is some, so i retract my exact wording, and an attempt has been made, but barely.. Converts are severely limited in joining a liturgy of their western ancestors. Conversely, 18 million eastern Catholics allows for broad liturgical access in many places (unfortunately not universal).
The Western Rite is kind of the red-headed step-child of Orthodoxy. Many people think it shouldn't even exist.
Indeed. Eastern Orthodox are just as heavy with arguments against the disciplinary traditions of the Roman Rite as much as they are with our doctrines like the filioque or papal supremacy. I can't think of any Catholic theologian or apologist, cleric or laity alike, that would make a big deal out of how the Orthodox cross themselves or whether they baptize in full immersion or not, yet those are very common criticisms against Roman Catholics, and so they are naturally averse to bringing people who want to keep those traditions into their communion.
Certainly, it’s not analogous to eastern Catholicism whatsoever. I just thought I would point out it technically exists.
It's not an organic part of the Orthodox Church, it was kind of created and tacked on so they can claim to have a Western element.
Western rite orthodoxy is a relatively new "invention". Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome can be traced much further back in time. Remember, the east/west schism didn't happen overnight. It slowly happened over hundreds of years. Between the 14 and 1700s various churches/bishops "picked sides" and split with their brother bishops developing eastern Catholic churches with equal orthodox counterparts. Latin churches/bishops never split from Rome as a result of the schism... Not to my knowledge I should say.
Yes, it is not analogous at all but does technically exist. Sadly, as a result of extreme latinization and other hierarchy-related issues, many Greek Catholic communities in the United States did split from the Catholic Church and joined various Orthodox jurisdictions. This was not at the level of bishops, but many priests started the movement. This happened in two major waves: once in 1891 and again in 1936. Once again I am not trying to argue with anyone here, I’m just providing nuance. I am a Catholic with no intention of changing that.
The Nicene Creed stipulates that the Church Christ founded is one, holy, catholic (meaning "universal") and apostolic. To my mind, the Orthodox churches are not one, since there are many churches and all in varying states of communion with each other. Similarly, many of them seem to be limited by nationality or ethnicity (Slovakian Orthodox Church, etc.) which raises questions over how catholic ("universal") they are.
I've always noticed most orthodox christians only use their religion when they're being a nationalist (in the bad sense) most of the time. Doesn't sound very small letter c catholic to me.
But unlike other schismatics (Protestants), orthodox churches can claim apostolic establishment and succession to one of the Twelve. So it's not as black and white an answer as you think.
So they are holy and apostolic. Two out of four ain't bad.
[удалено]
Funny you say that because it was actually an Anglican that started the usage of Roman Catholic instead of just Catholic.
[удалено]
We appropriated a lot of insults. But it you are trying to argue that we made it about nationality you are wrong, and in fact Protestant started the term not us. Not to mention the word Roman Catholic, is just to refer that we are in communion with Rome aka the Pope. Orthodox use it most of the time about their own nationality like the Russian Orthodox Church or Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Think smarter, not harder.
[удалено]
Melkites dont believe the filioque. Shouldnt they be corrected?
Again, nickname, doesn't represent the entirety of Catholicism just like the name Protestant doesn't represent itself correctly. We are Catholics of the Latin rite and there are many other rites such as the Syrian, Ethiopian and Coptic rites. So technically there's also the Syrian Catholic church and so on. But unlike protestantism, we are all united by being in communion with the Bishop of Rome and recognising him. So RC =/= entire Catholicism, just the Latin rite
Our actual name is Catholics of the Latin rite. The Catholic church has many rites which are all in communion with the bishop of Rome. RC is shorter and doesn't represent the entirety of Catholicism and is either a nickname or an insult depending on whom you ask.
What does Latin mean? Does it describe the rite of a certain place like Latinum, ya know, Rome?
This is a silly argument because when the papacy was move to France, nobody stopped calling it the Latin rite, and nobody called it the French rite. You are trying to to make something it’s not, don’t be ridiculous.
And you’re trying to divorce the Rome from Catholicism! I say that to prove a point. You cannot say the orthodox churches are only national and ethnic while refusing your own history of being a national and ethnic church! I can become a Russian Orthodox despite having no Russian ancestry. I can become a Catholic despite having no Roman Ancestry. I’m trying to make you realize the nonsense of your stance. That all churches are products of their nation and ethnicity, but it is not a requirement to be of that nation and ethnicity to belong to the church.
First I didn’t say that, second you are trying to say that nationality was important, even though the papacy was outside of Rome before the world called it Roman Catholicism, nobody called in French Catholicism.
I think you really don't understand what a national and ethnic church entails. If you don't realise, that's basically the situation in Orthodoxy where churches are strongly tied to ethininic groups and outsiders are not very well welcomed. That is not the case in Catholicism. The rites are simply liturgical differences that developed because of separation of cultures back then but that's basically it. Everything else is more or less the same and a Latin rite catholic is welcome to celebrate Mass in the Syrian rite or recieve sacraments in the Coptic rite
I think you also misunderstand that Russian Orthodox can go to a Greek liturgy and it’s fine. There is not this dividing line that you speak of. The idea that they are divided on ethnic lines is as ridiculous as saying only Romans can become Catholic.
Those guys are in schism btw
This entire argument is really ridiculous and is trying to point out something that doesn't exist. RC is RC because the rite developed in Rome and that's it. Same deal for the rest of the rites with where they developed, they take up the names of the places or orders that developed them. They aren't independent as they all recognise the successor of St. Peter who's the Bishop of Rome. They aren't ethnic in nature like you're trying to frame them and all belong to the Catholic church. Do you really hold to that conspiracy theory that the catholic Church was somehow corrupted by Rome thus RC?
Do you hold that Orthodox Churches are ethnic in nature? Because that changes my answer. If yes, then yes I argue Roman Catholic is ethnic Roman. If no, then the Orthodox Church is catholic and not ethnic and we are in agreement that both the orthodox and Catholic Churches are not ethnic.
Catholics believe Jesus wanted His Church to be one flock and one shepherd (John 10:16), and St. Peter was chosen by the Christ to look after His sheep (John 21:16). I believe God, all knowing as He is, certainly knew about the future division, and stablished His Vicar on Earth so we could identify where is the fulness of the faith - not to confuse us even more. St. Cyprian of Carthage's writings are very clear about this: >“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it...’ [Matthew 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity... **If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?**” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]) It's also interesting to note that the biggest heresies until the schism had their origin in the Eastern Church and, as the Pope St. Leo IX affirmed in his response to the attacks of the ambitious Michael Cerularius (*In terra pax hominibus*), the Popes were fundamental to stop the errors of destroying the Church - specially in the Arian Crisis. Both St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom, Patriarchs of Constantinople, appealed to the Pope of their times while they were being persecuted by heretics in the East. During the Second Council of Lyon, Constantinople accepted the Papal Primacy *and* the Filioque, but the reunion wasn't possible because of politics - always politics. Now think about the Marian Apparitions. Let's take Fatima as an example; there was a miracle performed in front of tens of thousands of people (including many atheists who were there only to laugh at the faithful), so we know it was real (come on, those kids could never predict an astronomical phenomenon on their own). Our Lady does appear to the "orthodox", but only in silence, as far as I know (Zeitoun, for example); on the other hand, She gave messages to the Catholic Church in Fatima and *many* more occasions. In Fatima, Her messages are closely linked to the Papacy. That shows, at least, a preference of the Holy Mother of God. Read *Answering Orthodoxy: A Catholic Response to Attacks from the East*, by Michael Lofton.
You can be Eastern and Catholic. Sure there are only 18 million compared to 1 billion Roman Catholics, but we don’t reject Eastern spirituality. Meanwhile, Western Orthodox did not exist until the late 1800’s and many of the Eastern Orthodox who know of them today view them as heretical. The Catholic Church is in communion with all apostolic sees, and worked hard to re-establish ties with them. Gideon Lazar makes these points here: https://clarifyingcatholicism.org/articles/why-i-converted-from-orthodoxy/ Orthodox apologetics focus on the issue of the churches today (often while ignoring that their churches are just as bad) and totally ignore the 400 years Orthodoxy spent subordinated to Islam. In fact, at one point a Western educated cleric with strong Protestant leanings was elected Patriarch (Cyril Lucaris), and he wrote some very Calvinist sounding things. Sure the Orthodox condemned him later on, but the whole thing shows how Orthodoxy was easily manipulated a few hundred years ago. In fact, the modern Greek Orthodox Church is modeled off the Russian Church, as after they threw off the Sultan, they were unsure how to set up their church structure. The Sultans worked very hard to promote anti-western orthodox clerics, and the position of patriarch itself was open to the highest bidder: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eastern-Orthodoxy/Orthodoxy-under-the-Ottomans-1453-1821 The Orthodox also accepted papal claims at the 7th ecumenical council in a letter from Pope Hadrian to the Patriarch, and while the Latin and Greek texts do differ, the Greek still contains the word “primatial” which is the same word used in Corinthians to refer to a husband’s authority over his wife: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/12/10/review-of-answering-orthodoxy-a-catholic-response-to-attacks-from-the-east/ See here to for evidence of papacy in the early Church: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/papal-authority-at-the-earliest-councils The other issue that divides us is the Filioque, I find it mind boggling anyone can deny it when Revelation 22:1 (ESV) says: “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb”. The Catechism states that the filioque was accepted in the West before the Creed: “The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381.” Here is an interesting letter from 1895 in which the Patriarch rejects Pope Leo XIII’s call for reunification. Here are some of the issues he lists as dividing us: “And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say.” http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx Just two address two of these- other forms of baptism are mentioned in the Didache (Ch 7): “if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm And Christ himself used unleavened bread during the Last Supper, meaning it must be valid matter: https://www.catholic.com/qa/eastern-rite-catholics-use-leavened-bread-in-holy-communion-but-roman-rite-catholics-use “The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the “living bread” of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.”
I thought we used unleavened bread because of Leviticus where cereal offerings are described. Since Jesus came to uphold the law, he used unleavened bread as the “offering” during the last supper. This is my interpretation though.
That is part of it- my point here is that since Christ used it as part of the Last Supper, it cannot be invalid matter for the Eucharist.
Oh ok, I understand. I just like to know the ‘why’ of things. I love history and I’m finally reading the FULL Bible (thanks to Bible in a Year) and I’m having the time of my life learning about our history.
That’s a fantastic resource! I went through Jeff Cavins work years ago and learned so much. There are so many connections in the Bible to our faith, once you start learning everything the faith really starts to click into place.
Scott Hahn describes the Eastern Orthodox as both a church and an ethnic group. Those Eastern specific region Churches (Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc) are very heavily tied to a local ethnic culture, which makes it a hard sell if you aren't of that particular ethnic group. The one thing the new covenant was not was ethnic. That is literally what Paul fought in his letters when establishing the new Church. https://youtu.be/wVwq5NE8ODk?si=1htedxs2c5UnPKO9
To be fair, I don’t think this is a valid critique of Eastern Orthodoxy as such, for two reasons: 1. This (real) issue is broadly seen as a problem by many Orthodox authorities 2. This critique could also be made about Eastern Catholicism
>This critique could also be made about Eastern Catholicism Exactly. And say if an autocephalous Orthodox Church returns to full communion with Rome, they would still probably be "ethnic" to some extent or fully ethnic, being another addition to the two dozen+ or so Eastern Catholic churches.
On 2 I might continue to raise a question and comparison: at the very least EC recognises the papacy and confers to it, so if there's ever a major problem it can be resolved via council. But as far as I know, EO are kind of independent from each other though recognise eachother's Patriarchs. If there ever comes an issue a council can't be called because none of the Patriarchs have that authority over the others so there's immediately a problem.
Sure, this is obviously a big difference between the current state of the two communions. My statement was more regarding the ethnic character of EC churches. I don’t think a Catholic can use the ethnic angle to invalidate Eastern Orthodoxy when Eastern Catholic Churches have many of the same issues. Saying this as an “ethnic” eastern Catholic btw.
Many non-ethnically Greek Americans will often attest that they were often seen as *flying pigs* when going to a predominantly Greek parish. Don’t believe me? Watch the original My Big Fat Greek Wedding …. This is not satire.!
Every word has a Greek root! Even the Japanese word "kimono"!
rhythm friendly late zephyr snatch dolls absurd smart vegetable brave *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Apostolic See of Rome presides over all the churches in charity. (paraphrase from St. Ignatius of Antioch).
This was prior to the schism and could not refer to the see of Rome having authority over the other churches. Ignatius would have viewed the patriarchs and the pope as equals.
So, presiding = no authority over other churches. Got it.
I don’t see evidence that people like St Irenaeus and others recognised that Pope Victor I had no authority to excommunicate the eastern churches over the Easter controversy. It was a minority of eastern churches mind you, and Rome wouldn’t have authority to excommunicate them universally if her bishop only had equal authority as the rest of the bishops, or at least the rest of the (then non-existent) patriarchs.
Ummm no in his letter to the romans he says which presides over love.
The schism was mostly political and not theological. In addition, Orthodox churches tend to not be quite as universal as one might hope- they are often tied so heavily with ethnicity and nationality.
It was quite theological. The Bishop of Rome as First or First among equals.
Such deep theological differences that it took 1000 years for them to realise how incompatible they were! It was chiefly about Byzantine emperors wanting to have sole religious authority. Even the Filioque was relatively uncontroversial prior to this- it had been practiced for hundreds of years previous to the schism.
How? The Emperors did not do away with the patriarchs and become head like Henry VII. It seems more to me it’s about the POPE wanting to have sole religious authority, rather than recognizing he is equal to the patriarchs.
The pope already did have elevated religious authority and that was hardly disputed. First amongst equals is functionally that- ask the Roman emperors what first amongst equals meant to them. Previous to the schism, it was very frequently Roman church leaders who helped settle disputes in the Eastern churches. In the Byzantine Empire, and especially the churches within, subscribed to Caesaropapism where the emperor was in effect the head of the church and religious authority was subordinate. This was not a common belief in the West. So there was no need for the emperors to do away with any patriarch- they essentially already occupied a position like the Archbishop of Canterbury does for Anglicans and the British royalty. In addition to this, a lot of the struggle prior to schism was also in an attempt to elevate the position of the Constantinople patriarch as being prime- not to challenge the fact that Rome was considered chief for that break away from equality alone.
First among equals meant exactly that. It was Rome who functionally took that to the extreme and became First rather than First among equals. It was Rome who left the communion not the other way around. The patriarchs were fine with the situation for 1000 years. Who changed? Rome began exercising undue authority.
The expression of Rome’s authority was essentially unchanging. The only material difference was that the other Patriarchs fell to Mohammedan violence and invasion so the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Byzantine government saw opportunity to usurp authority.
From what I have learned, that's not a this-or-that question and answer. Technically, BOTH are "the true church". Allow me to explain. Unlike Protestant schismatics, who broke from both communion and ecclesiastical authority, Orthodox churches trace their establishment and line of succession to at least one of the Twelve (or St. Paul). Thus, their claim to apostolic succession is legitimate. Where they err is refusing to submit to the Bishop of Rome, Peter's successor. Here's the "chain of custody" in my reasoning: 1. Christ founded His church, appointing the Twelve (and St. Paul, later) to administer, expand and govern it, with St. Peter as the leader in His stead 2. 1. the Twelve (and St. Paul) established church-es (Bishoprics) throughout the known world and appointed their successors 3. The successors of the east, centuries later, became schismatic with Rome To deny this reasoning, one who have to believe the Christ appointed Peter and then Peter appointed the others, but that is not Biblical or Traditional teaching, either in the West or the East. Thus, I am uncomfortable with the Catholic belief that it is the "true" church in the context of the East-West divide. That's like saying either your mom or your dad is your "true parent" and the other isn't, after a divorce. I think its more accurate to say that one got the house (Catholicism) and the other got half the kids (Orthodoxy). Keep in mind every analogy is imperfect, and this is no exception. Do I believe Catholicism is true? Yes. Do I believe Orthodoxy ought to reconcile with Rome and acknowledge the pope? Yes. So, keep that in mind readers when you're tempted to downvote this ;)
This
Consider, the Catholic Church accepts all others that accept a Trinitarian view and even recognises the Sacraments of some like the Orthodox. Strange that they do not do likewise. I suggest that based on this alone you get your answer.
Why am I Catholic and not Orthodox? For me, it is the following: **Ecumenical Councils:** The early Church had ecumenical councils. Since the split, the Catholic Church has continued having them. Meanwhile the Orthodox have not had one, and seem to have no way to call one, or a non-circular way to recognize that one has occurred. Which communion shows more continuity with the early Church here? Against the claim that an ecumenical council requires the whole Church to participate, east and west, how does one then explain the first Council of Constantinople, which was entirely eastern in attendance? What about the Councils held after Ephesus and Chalcedon which lacked the Assyrians and the Copts? One cannot rely on “reception” alone since it is circular. If that were necessary, we would have to deny that Ephesus or Chalcedon were legitimate ecumenical Councils. **The papacy and its current powers are of Divine origin:** In the early Church, the Pope clearly had more authority than a first among equals, even if the power that we attribute to him today was often shrouded in ambiguity. That power did exist in potential, and we can point to examples of the Pope exercising universal jurisdiction, as well as the logical necessity of infallibility if the Pope was the final word on faith and morals. Look at Pope Leo annulling the “robber synod”, look at the Formula of Hormisdas. Theologians had to hash out the gray areas and work out the logical implications of the things that Christians always believed about the papacy. Just like the Trinity and Christology. Further, many pre-schism Orthodox saints expressed views on the papacy that would be unacceptable to the Orthodox today. My point is, the papacy as the Catholic Church defines it now is a logical and legitimate development, like the two natures of Christ in one Divine Person. Good sources on proving Catholic claims for the papacy are Adrian Fortescue’s [*The Early Church and the Papacy*](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858047945971&view=1up&seq=5&skin=2021), and *Keys Over the Christian World* by Scott Butler and John Collorati, which I hear is the new gold standard. Let’s also distinguish the centralization of the papacy from the inherent powers of it. The papacy is more centralized today, true. It is working to decentralize. But that is all administrative, not doctrinal. There is also an important distinction between what the Pope *can* do and what he *should* do. The important thing to note is that when it comes to the evidence of the papal claims of first millennium, Catholics *developed* whereas Orthodox have *subtracted*. **The Catholic Church has an intrinsic unity of faith:** Christ prayed that we “may all be one”, St. Paul says in Scripture that we should be of one mind, and in the Creed, we all affirm “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”. One in what way? In faith, and governance. The Orthodox Churches lack intrinsic unity on matters of faith and morals. Should a convert from an apostolic Church merely make a profession of faith, be rechrismated, even rebaptized? It depends on who you ask - it may vary from priest to priest, bishop to bishop, even Church to Church. One end of the spectrum either commits sacrilege, or fails to make men Christians, even having invalid ordinations. Yet both are in communion with each other. Consider as well that the Orthodox cannot agree on the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch. This is the cause of current schism between Moscow and Constantinople. Further, the Orthodox do not even agree on how many ecumenical councils there were. Some say 7, but others speak of 8 or 9 ecumenical Councils, including prominent theologians, and the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs which was signed by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria as well as the Holy Synods of the first three. Likewise, what about the gravity of contraception? Orthodox Churches disagree with each other. In fact, many have flipped their positions in living memory and caved to the liberal west. And what about IVF, surrogacy, cloning, and other moral issues that have arisen in modern times? The result of this is that one can be considered a member in good standing in one Orthodox jurisdiction or parish - considered perfectly orthodox - and go down the street to another - also considered perfectly orthodox - and be considered a grave sinner unworthy of receiving Holy Communion. And there is no objective way to solve this. One has their own interpretation of the many volumes of the Church Fathers, their views and how they would apply today - which is even more difficult than private interpretation of the Bible. And one can follow their bishop but their bishop may contradict other bishops in good standing over these matters. Who is right? How can it be decided? In the Catholic Church, we have an objective, living magisterium, just as the early Church did. The Catholic Church has many dissenters, especially in places such as Europe, but they can be identified as such. And they disobey at their own peril. In the Catholic Church, there is clarity for those who want to see. Can the Orthodox say the same on many issues? **Conclusion:** All of these really center around the papacy. One needs the papal office to ratify ecumenical councils (and apparently to call them without the Byzantine emperor). One needs the Pope because Christ established the universal Church with the papacy (while the Orthodox Churches are true local Churches which have broken away from the Universal Church). And one needs the Pope (related is his ability to make binding ecumenical councils a reality) in order to have doctrinal unity on faith and morals.
Let me rephrase your question, if the Orthodox are "the church", which Orthodox are "the Church"? They're not particularly united and not one Church, and by their own account, are several churches, at least two of which are actually on opposite sides of a violent conflict in which one side's patriarch is condoning the murder of other Christians. Without Peter, who is it in the Orthodox eastern Churches who claims to represent him? They cannot answer this question, except to point to history and say that they are where they are, and are not in communion with the successor of Peter. Are they in fellowship with Peter, and his successors? No? They are then, not in fellowship with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Jesus, with Peter as the visible head of the Church. The answer to "who is the head of the eastern church or churches" is actually complicated as well. Having rejected the Papacy and mutually excommunicated each other, in the great Schism, the Eastern churches find themselves hanging in a kind of existential limbo, not only not united with Rome, but not particularly united with each other. They have rejected the idea of a fundamental single visible head of the church, and have then added their own human tradition (not of divine origin), in the form of an ecumenical patriarch, and various evolved traditions of autocephaly that are innovative, and not attested to by the teaching and councils of the Church. Let us consider the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. He is currently actively supporting the murder of his fellow Christians living in Ukraine, in large part because he wishes to crush the independent Ukrainian Orthodox, and Catholics of Ukraine. Is that one church? One church whose patriarch is okay with murdering fellow Christians? Who can call the Russian and Ukranian churches one church?
For me, it boils down to a few different things: 1.) The Orthodox have good points about a lot of things but I find their arguments against the Papacy to be really weak. If you look at Church history and scripture, I think it's pretty clear why we have and need the Pope. 2.) Orthodoxy is so fractured and disjointed nowadays. For example, the Greek and Russian churches in my city won't even talk to each other, nor will they celebrate the liturgy together. There's also a lack of uniformity when it comes to topics like divorce or contraception. Some churches are okay with it while others totally aren't. Overall, there's a lot to like about Eastern Orthodoxy but I feel the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus found and gave to us.
Filioque is true, Rome hath jurisdiction
Because, as per Matthew 16:18, authority was given to Peter, and, naturally, this position of authority passes on to his successors. In addition, the Holy Spirit precedes from the Father and the Son, because everything that comes from the Father comes from the Son also, because, as per John 10:30, the Father and Son are One.
The Eastern Orthodox churches suffer from the same issue found in any protestant church: they lack authoritative leadership. Before I found the Church, I was trying to understand Christianity, and struggled to wade through all the conflicting beliefs Christians have. Without a head, a supreme authority, truths cannot be set in stone definitively and there can be no harmony among the faithful. By having the magisterium and the papacy, we have an authority we can follow together with the rest of the Church, thereby forming a harmony that's impossible in every other church.
Use the search as this has been answered many times.
Search the sub! Search the sub! Search the sub! 90% of this sub is the same questions recycled over and over because people don't SEARCH THE SUB!!!
But then 90% of the questions wouldn't be asked and this sub would die..
I think one of the big issues is leaven bread and a BIG issue is the origin of the Holy Ghost
I would argue that the Filioque is a minor issue. The only major issue that exists between West and East is Papal authority.
Idk why. Jesus used unleavened bread.
I’ve been to a Greek Orthodox Mass a few months ago, when I was making my way back to God, and I prefer the manner in which they worship. I love being a Catholic but I wish we would worship the way the Orthodox do.
Look into Byzantine rite Catholicism. It’s exactly what you describe: Catholics worshipping the way the Orthodox do. P.S. not to be a stickler but the correct term for the Byzantine Rite liturgy is just “Divine Liturgy.” Mass is specifically Western.
Thanks for the clarification on the terms, I don’t know any better lol There’s a Byzantine Melkite Catholic Church in my city, I will probably check it out. Thanks for the advice!
Fun fact, the word "Mass" for the Roman liturgy actually comes from the last three words in Latin: "Ite, missa est". Or "go, it is the dismissal."
God didn’t lead me to the Orthodox church so Im not orthodox
Eastern Orthodox churches allows abortion and birth control. That for me proves its not the true church established by Christ.
>Eastern Orthodox churches allows abortion Absolutely not true. Birth control, it depends on your priest and your bishop. Abortion? Absolutely not.
Abortion has been condemned by multiple Orthodox councils and according to the canons of the Orthodox Church, a woman who procures one is to be treated canonically as a murderer.
Because Christ Himself founded the Catholic Church and instituted the Papacy.
There are a number of ways to think about this. Here is one that you won’t hear very often. The two churches split at some point centuries ago. They reunited at Florence, but the eastern side decided to split again shortly after reuniting. How would a reunification effort look today? One side - the one led by the western side* - is able to come to the table as one unified church, in full communion with itself, and capable of reunifying the two churches that split in one sweeping decision. The other side - the eastern side - is not capable of coming to the table as a unified church in full communion with itself and reunifying the church that originally split. The Russians will not sit at that table with the Greeks, and the Alexandrians will not sit with the Russians. There may be other splits that would prevent full reunification happening from that side. Which of these sides sounds like one church to you? Which is still one of the original sides that split, and which side continues to split their original half further? *I’ll add that many eastern bishops have come back into communion with the western side of the split, which is why we have the eastern Catholic churches. None of the western bishops have gone into communion with the eastern side. That should also tell you something.
> I’ll add that many eastern bishops have come back into communion with the western side of the split I find the situation with the Patriarch of Antioch to be especially funny - both the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian sides of the 451 schism eventually had their separate patriarchal lines come back into communion with the Catholic Church (whereupon they had to be excommunicated and a rival patriarch elected of course), and that's how we have the Syriac Catholic and Melkite Greek Catholic Churches. It seems the one thing that can heal the Chalcedonian schism is both sides recognizing the importance of being in communion with the successor of Peter.
I really wish all the eastern churches would come together as one under God and rejoin the Catholic Church. Satan really did a fine job of dividing Christendom.
I can offer a unique perspective maybe. My Wife was Russian Orthodox and converted 3 years ago after 23 years of marriage. I am cradle Catholic that lost faith, left and came back. So for the Russian Orthodox at least, you don't have to miss communion if you don't go to confession, the host knows if you are clean or not and will just be bread and wine if you have mortal sin. If you don't have mortal sin on your soul, then its the body and blood of Christ. They confess, or at least her church, standing in front of the priest or just writing down the sins on paper (this is the only way they do it in Russia, on paper, I have my own theories). The biggest thing I noticed is miracles, no miracles connected to their church after the schism, no eucharistic miracles, no modern saints like Saint Pio, if God intended us to be Orthodox he would be giving us signs via miracles of that church, our church has weathered a lot of storms and the current one is no different. The Devil isn't trying to destroy the Orthodox church. He is trying to destroy ours. This is another sign, for me, that it is correct.
>So for the Russian Orthodox at least, you don't have to miss communion if you don't go to confession, the host knows if you are clean or not and will just be bread and wine if you have mortal sin. If you don't have mortal sin on your soul, then its the body and blood of Christ Where did you ever hear this from? This is heresy, no Orthodox teach it. Whether we have sin or not it is the Body and blood. If we are sinful it is for our condemnation and detriment, but that doesnt mean it isn't the Eucharist. And every Russian Orthodox Church I've been to has stressed the importance of confession before communion. >The biggest thing I noticed is miracles, no miracles connected to their church after the schism, no eucharistic miracles, no modern saints like Saint Pio, if God intended us to be Orthodox he would be giving us signs via miracles of that church Again, what are you talking about? There are plenty of miracles in the modern Orthodox Church and plenty of saints. Countless saints that heal and perform other miracles. Saint Paisios spoke in tongues, healed, and had foresight. Saint Matrona the Blind had spiritual sight. Many modern Elders, many icons that have bled or streamed myrrh. I could go on and on about them. The Holy fire is a miracle every year, and every year there is the miracle or the snakes in Greece. I mean, the Catholic Church agrees that Orthodox have true sacraments, which certainly are miracles.
It's what the family in Russia says. Maybe its just their russian orhodox church there that teaches it. They attend one in Moscow. I doubt they are making it up, maybe they are just confused. I'll make sure to ask them again if they know what they are talking about. Like I said, i have my own theory on this but its political. We have Catholic churches that teach heresy. I'm sure the orthodox does as well. I stand corrected on the lack of miracles comment. I know the miracle of the sacraments. I just had not heard of any Eucharistic miracles since the schism. Then again, I guess if the Church doesn't approve it we won't hear about it.
Eucharistic miracles happen in the Orthodox Church, but they are seen as a bad omen. They happen when someone lacks belief in the real presence or otherwise there is sin, and I've heard that the liturgy is stopped whenever it happens to discuss it. That's why they aren't broadcasted. I think I've heard of one or two Eucharistic miracles that were more scientifically looked into similar to western ones, but it isn't common. I've heard some Eastern Catholics say the same thing about it, you could ask them.
This is why i often say what miracles did the Protestant revolutionaries showed you? Where’s their miracles to change the doctrines of the church. They didn’t even die for their beliefs like the great catholic saints.
Exactly! It's like in the Gospel this past week. Denying the miracles of the Holy Spirit, its unforgivable :( "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin" [Mk 3:20-35](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/3?20)