Roman Catholic verses Orthodox Church - which is correct?

[polonius]

This question has arisen elsewhere and I'd be interested in readers views of this issue.

The (Western) Roman Catholic Church claims apostolic succession through the Apostle Peter. It claims infallibility (no errors) by way of ecumenical (general) councils and all ex cathedra papal teachings.

The (Eastern) Orthodox churches claim apostolic succession through one of the other Apostles and only the infallibility of their first 10 ecumenical councils and no infallibility of their reigning senior bishop.

Since the Eastern Churchs claims apostolic succession, their sacraments are considered valid by the Roman Catholic church, but Catholics are advised to seek out one of their own clergy and only use the Orthodox clergy when it is not possible to use Catholic clergy.

Interestingly, some of the Eastern Church have reunited with Rome in which case they are known as Eastern Rite Catholics. In doing so thy have had to agree to accept certain teaching not regarded as valid in the Orthodox Chuch such as the "stain theory" of original sin and the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Question: Am I in error here or are there other major differences in beliefs?

[onewithhim]

This verse simply shows that Jesus rejected some of the traditions of the Pharisees. It doesn't say he rejected all tradition.

Jesus rejected ALL of the traditions of the Pharisees. That is clear at Matthew chapter 23, if you'll kindly read that.

I just reread it. It doesn't say that Jesus rejected all the traditions of the Pharisees.

In fact, that chapter begins with Jesus telling his followers that "the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses's seat" -- a position of authority that was established by Jewish tradition rather than Scripture -- "therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it, but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach" -- a rather odd thing for Jesus to say if he rejected Pharisaic tradition entirely.

But, again, Christians don't follow the traditions of the Pharisees or their successors, the rabbis. They follow the traditions of the apostles and their successors, the bishops. So Jesus' critique of some (or, in theory, even all) of the traditions of the Pharisees does nothing to establish the claim that we should discount or ignore the oral traditions of the apostles.

When Paul said to follow the traditions that his fellow Christians knew, he was referring to what they learned from Christ himself.

Paul doesn't say that the Thessalonians should follow the traditions they learned from Jesus. He says they are to "hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us," that is, by Paul and his companions, "either by word of mouth or by our letter." Even if Paul was in some instances passing along some traditions that originated with Jesus, the point he is making here is that it doesn't matter whether the tradition has been handed on orally or in writing, Christians are to follow both kinds.

Paul and the Apostles taught a tradition of truth, and they got it all from Jesus. Paul doesn't indicate that we are to follow both kinds of traditions. You added that yourself.

The bishops of Christendom are not in line to be followed by me. They have no authority according to the Scriptures. They are part of the great Apostasy that was forming even while Paul and John were still alive.

"I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:29)

After John died around 98 AD the Apostasy carried on in full bloom. I wouldn't pay attention to anything written or spoken by the church after that date.