Can't I just be Orthodox or Anglican? | Joe Heschmeyer

Why choose Roman Catholicism over Orthodox or Anglican? Is there much of a difference between them all? Joe Heschmeyer gives some differences and why they matter.

Watch the full Catholic Answers Live show from August 24, 2022:

[TheGreekCatholic]

I think it’s just a way in western culture to be Catholic without having the stigma of Roman Popery associated with one self . It’s kind of like having one foot in the door and the other one out. Also, we have this strange fascination of eastern mysticism. Not just in Christianity but in general with the west. This is coming from a baptised Eastern Orthodox. Now a Catholic .

[SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met.

Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue.

Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met.

The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why?

In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (high priest office) fell into apostasy and beit din gadol cast a vote of no confidence splitting the two offices of the kohan gadol into the "nasi" and the "ab" within the Beit Din Gadol.

Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple and bringing the two offices back together the way it originally was.

The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism.

Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history.

Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie bishops who make up the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

First book of Kings lists all the Kings and it always has the royal steward/vizier listed next to the King as well because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. (Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the temple and government).

Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return.

[mbwp]

But what about the counsil of Nicea, where not the bishop of Rome but the emperor was leading the Church?

[reverendcoffinsotherson]

3:10 says who? And why? We already established that Saint Peter didn't just start churches in Rome.

[iliya]

There were schisms in the first millennium like that between Moscow and Constantinople fairly often. I also thought it was interesting he said there is a schism between Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox as if that is an internal "Orthodox" affair - it's not. Non-Chalcedonian Churches have been out of communion with ALL Chalcedonian Churches, including the Latin Church, since after the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD. It's as much as an "internal" Roman Catholic schism as it is an Eastern Orthodox one since it happened 1600 years ago. Moreover, choosing the Roman Church as a foundation of stability and Orthodoxy in the first millennium made sense at the time because Rome was very consistent in professing an unstained doctrinally pure Orthodox confession until Pope Honorius (even the subsequent Pope after the 6th Council admitted that Honorius polluted the purity of the Apostolic See). But nonetheless, it still had a great track record despite Pope Honorius' anathematization as a heretic in the 6th Council all the way until 1014AD when Rome took the Frankish confession of the Creed with the filioque, provoking schism in the universal Church. Point being, unity was not principally around the Pope for the Pope's own sake, but because for 1000 years their track record was near perfect for professing the Orthodox Catholic confession of Faith. Not for the Pope's sake, but for Orthodoxy's sake. However, after the Pope of Rome abandoned unity with his Orthodox Catholic brethren, he no longer was considered a point of unity since the Latin Patriarchate existed by itself, falling into schism with the Catholic Church of the Orthodox Faith. Uniatism was a later phenomenon and more seen as the "Eastern Rite" of the Roman Church until fairly recently.

[attkdriver]

Just some food for thought, and at the very least might raise some eyebrows, Rome was not the first or only Sea of Peter. Might be worth the read if you are interested in Church history. Also, this is just my opinion, we should stop debate on Orthodox v Catholic and concentrate our efforts into pushing back against the degeneracy that has become the norm in our society. That, my friends, is a worthy battle!

[reverendcoffinsotherson]

2:06 huh? Saint Peter had a lot of mission work done outside of Rome, bro. Rome was just his last stop.

[jamessheffield]

We got our Apostolic Succession from Gregory the Great, and we have the AV Bible, the Prayer Book 1662/1928, and the 39 Articles, so we don't have to worry what Welby or Francis are saying or doing.

[reverendcoffinsotherson]

2:20 there are various types of Catholics, too, bruh. So that's another criticism of Orthodoxy that Catholics have as well.

[contra-mundum--bcpu]

Former Catholic who became Orthodox: Joe's answers here are frankly inadequate and misleading.

1. The fact that the Orthodox acknowledge that Rome had "some kind of primacy" does not prove papal claims. Apostolic Canon 34 clearly attests to what this primacy looked like:

"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."

The idea that a hierarch can act unilaterally without his synod is completely absent from the early church. This is furthered echoed by the Vatican's own Chieti Document:

"The institution of the metropolitanate is one form of regional communion between local churches. Subsequently other forms developed, namely the patriarchates comprising several metropolitanates. Both a metropolitan and a patriarch were diocesan bishops with full episcopal power within their own dioceses. In matters related to their respective metropolitanates or patriarchates, however, they had to act in accord with their fellow bishops...He and all the bishops acted in mutual complementarity and were accountable to the synod."

Also from Chieti:

"Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East."

Once Rome fell into heterodoxy, universal primacy shifted from Rome to Constantinople, as per the ecumenical councils (see 3rd Canon of 1st Constantinople).

2. Joe misses tremendously with his answer regarding the Moscow-Constantinople Schism. While it's true these two sees are out of communion with one another, they ARE still in communion with the other Orthodox churches. Additionally, the dispute between them is not doctrinal in nature, but rather over jurisdiction and the issue of who the mother church of Ukraine is. Asking the question of "Well, what Orthodox would you join?" is a deliberately misleading question.

3. Please, Catholic apologists, stop misquoting St. Irenaeus. That passage about being "in agreement with the Church in Rome" has nothing to do with papal claims. If you read the passage in context, St. Irenaeus is talking about apostolic succession and how Rome's line is easily traceable. Therefore, if you were unsure about what was Orthodoxy vs heterodoxy during that time, the saint advises you to follow the practice of the Roman Church.

[szudy]

I’m Roman Catholic but joining the Eastern Orthodox Church. I love the Divine Liturgy way more than the NO Mass.

[JoshAlicea]

Orthodox Theology is “decentralized” meaning they place their unity on apostolic teaching, not on a person, scripture alone, or ecclesiastical hierarchy. They would argue that keeps bishops from becoming corrupt, and that is a “feature, not a bug.” Thoughts?

[stephenbailey]

Anglicanism claims roots to the Celtic Church which preceded the arrival of Rome's representative.
Anglicanism is also primarily a Protestant Church as can be discerned when one looks deeply into the Book of Common Prayer.
Giving central importance to the liturgy is not the same thing as being Roman Catholic.

[josephusormocanus]

Yeah the Bible is clear that Peter was the earthly head chosen by Christ Himself as per Jn. 1:42, Mt. 16:18-19, Jn. 15:17-21...

ON THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER IN JESUS'S CHURCH, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

• Peter’s name was mentioned over 190 times in the New Testament, while John 29 times. All the other Apostles 130 times.

• In Acts of the Apostles, Peter’s named was mentioned 56 times from Chapter 1 to 5.

• In Chapter 1, Peter leads in the selection to replace Judas.

• In Chapter 2, Peter speaks for the Church at Pentecost.

• In Chapter 3, Peter works the most miraculous healings in post-Ascension Church.

• In Chapter 4, Peter answers for the Church before the Council of the High Priest.

• In Chapter 5, Peter metes out the punishments of Ananias and Sapphira.

• In Chapter 10, the first Gentile convert was specifically told to find Peter.

• Acts 10:10-16 – Peter was given vision about four footed animals which can be eaten.

• Matthew 10:2-4 –Peter was mentioned first among the Apostles.

• Mark 3:14-19 – Peter was mentioned first among the Apostles.

• Luke 6:14-16 - Peter was mentioned first among the Apostles.

• Acts 2:37 - Peter was mentioned first and Judas last.

• Acts 5:29 - Peter was mentioned first and Judas last.

• Mark 1:36 -Peter was mentioned first and Judas last.

• Mark 16:7 – the Angel said about Peter, “But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him, just as He told you.’

• John 20:4 – Peter was given privilege by a disciple of Jesus to enter Jesus’ Tomb first: “4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, "

THE KEYS, THE SYMBOL OF AUTHORITY

• Isaiah 22:20-22 – The Key is the Symbol of Authority of a Prime Minister in the house of David.

• Matthew 16:18-19 – Aside from establishing the Church upon Peter, Jesus also gave to Peter the Keys of Heaven.

• Luke 22:29 - And I bestow on you a kingdom, just as My Father has bestowed one on Me.

• Luke 22:31-32 –“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you like wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

• John 21:15-17 – “When they had finished eating, Jesus asked Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love Me more than these?” “Yes, Lord, ” he answered, “You know I love You.” Jesus replied, “Feed My lambs.” Jesus asked a second time, “Simon son of John, do you love Me?” “Yes, Lord, ” he answered, “You know I love You.”Jesus told him, “Shepherd My sheep.” Jesus asked a third time, “Simon son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was deeply hurt that Jesus had asked him a third time, “Do you love Me?” “Lord, You know all things, ” he replied. “You know I love You. Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep...



BEAR IN MIND THAT,

• In John 1:42 Jesus renamed Simon to Cephas or Peter or Rock,

• Later, in Matthew 16:18 Jesus in front of His disciples specifically told Peter, "And I tell you that you are Peter (Rock), and upon this rock I will build my church...",

• Right then and there, Jesus gave Peter HEAVENLY AUTHORITY, the Keys of Heaven, according to Matthew 16:19,

• Then, Jesus again specifically told Peter, "Feed My sheep...feed My lambs (flock)" - John 15:17-21

AREN'T ALL THESE SIGNIFYING PETER'S HEADSHIP OF A CHURCH WHICH JESUS HAD JUST ESTABLISHED BACK THEN?

DID JESUS SAYS TO PETER ESTABLISH PROTESTANTISM CHURCHES?

VERY CLEAR JESUS CHRIST HAD ESTABLISHED A CHURCH WITH A LEADER IN IT, NOT LEADERLESS THOUSAND CHURCHES LIKE PROTESTANTISM, AND DEFINITELY NOT TEMPORARY IN NATURE SINCE IT WAS JESUS HIMSELF WHO SAYS:

"I will be with you (HIS CHURCH) until the end of time" - Mt. 28:20


PETER was killed by the Romans.

....AFTER Peter's martyrdom in 67 AD...

Pope Linus (name mentioned in 2 Tim. 4:21) succeeded Peter. Killed also by the Romans in 76 AD,

Pope Anacletus, who succeeded Pope Linus was also killed by the Romans in 91 AD,

Pope Clement I, (name mentioned in Philippians 4:3, 4th Pope of the Catholic Church in the First 100 years), successor to Pope Anacletus on 100 AD was thrown to sea with a ship anchor tied to his neck by his Roman captors...

...2021 AD...

Pope Francis, the 266th Pope of the Catholic Church.

HOW ABOUT YOUR RELIGION'S HISTORY???

[imaliveu]

The Quinisext Council shows that that there was a power struggle within the Church long before the Great Schism between the Western Church and Eastern Church happened. Originally there were four Holy Sees being Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome. Then a fifth Holy See emerged Constantinople in which there was a debate over which Patriarch was the head of the Church which indicates there was a centralized leader of the Church in the first place that would be St. Peter and his successors. There was a Council held by Emperor Justinian II at Constantinople with the advice from the Patriarch of Constantinople Kallinikos I to bring an end over the Patriarchs including Pope St. Sergius I who was the leader of the Church. Of course four of the Patriarchs along with the Eastern Bishops attended this Council and agreed that each Patriarch only is the head of their corresponding Holy See which included the Pope the Bishop of the Holy See of Rome. However, Pope St. Sergius I didn't agree with this Council so he declined to attend along with the Western Bishops as it was Jesus Who appointed St. Peter as the leader of the Apostles and his successors of the Holy See of Rome were rightfully appointed as the leader of the Bishops therefore the leader of the entire Church in this world.

It's called the Quinisext Council because of only the four Patriarchs attended NOT the Pope. The actual name of this Council was the Council of Trullo.

The reason why I'm Catholic instead of Eastern Orthodox because the schism is the rejection of acknowledging the Pope the successor of St. Peter chosen by Jesus to lead the Church in favor of undermining Jesus's choice by what these Patriarchs believing that it would be better to end a dispute over who was the leader of the Church. Since then the Eastern Orthodox Church has been going downhill like permitting married couples to use birth control when the early Church Fathers regarded such a thing sinful especially Eastern Church Fathers like St. John Chrysostom. Or like recognizing civil divorce under certain circumstances which all began over a Byzantine Emperor Constantine VI.

[ultimouomo]

Hey Joe, where did you buy those bookshelves?

[martharadocy]

The one thing to remember is that Jesus did Not say to Peter … you are Peter and over you I will build The Church…. Jesus said over you I will build MY Church. So the Church is Jesus’ the Pope is the Vicar or Christ on earth but he is not the head of the church…

[Thefamiliaguy]

Jesus said "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, "... Jesus did not say I will build my church first on Peter then subsequently I will build the church with the Bishop of Rome and then centuries later I would continue to build my church further with generational Pope figures. He only said Peter. I have an open mind, show me Biblically where I am wrong.

[P-elzd]

As a confessional Lutheran, I guess if I were to join another communion, it would likely be the Orthodox Church. For some Catholics the Pope can break wind and they would be like it smells like Chanel No. 5.

[TheFreeThought]

I'm catholic Catechumen and the which orthodox question gets annoying. I am battling between denominations and these answers are never good enough