How do Orthodox Christians feel different from Catholics?

[Mingle]

I support ecumenism. John Paul 2 started it.

What do you think about sedevacantism?

[unseen]

I have evidence - Russia is upset with recognition of Ukrainian orthodox church.

Your proof itself needs proof. What did you conclude that Russia is upset?

Are you afraid of avilability of choice for Ukrainians ?

I'm not afraid "avilability of choice for Ukrainians".

I'm just trying to figure out what is the basis of your statements.

[ixulescu]

Ruski as an ethnicity referred to East Slavs in general. Ukrainians and Belorussians then broke away from Russians because of political reasons similar to the case with Romanians and Bessarabian Moldovans.

There's no parallel whatsoever. Half of Moldova was simply occupied by the Tsarist empire following a Russo-Ottoman war.
In addition, Moldovans speak Romanian, while Ukrainian and Russian are different languages.

Why not? Romanians have cultural continuity from the Romans. They call themselves Roman and speak the language of the Romans. Their ancestors have been identifying as Roman since the Middle Ages. When did they suddenly stop being Roman?

Romanians are not Romans. Roman is not an ethnicity, but a citizenship. Greeks were also Romans and called themselves as such for centuries (Romaioi). Roman state is long gone, so Romanians can't be Roman (citizens). Romanians do have ancestry from Roman citizens, just like Ukrainians have ancestry from Kievan Rus, but they're not Russians.

[Pribislav]

Feiichy support ecumenism - aka Catholization of Serbs and other Orthodoxes.
120 years ago there was 400 000 Greeco-Catholics in Croatia, today their number is 40 000 because most of them became Roman Catholics and Croatians of course. Uniat church in Croatia was founded in 1611, a lot of Orthodox Serbs became Greeco-Catholics and later Roman Catholics and Croatians due to that Pope's church.

[Dušan]

I support ecumenism. John Paul 2 started it.

Eastern Orthodox and Western Roman church should stay separated.

[ixulescu]

Eastern Orthodox and Western Roman church should stay separated.

They should stay apart but should recognize each other. There are bigger fish to fry these days.

[Mingle]

There's no parallel whatsoever. Half of Moldova was simply occupied by the Tsarist empire following a Russo-Ottoman war.

Like how the western part of Russia was occupied by Lithuania following the Mongol invasion?

Also, Russia took back some land from Lithuania after beating them in a war. These people now identify as ethnic Russians. The only difference between these people and Ukrainians/Belorussians is that one stayed part of the PLC while the other didn't.

In addition, Moldovans speak Romanian, while Ukrainian and Russian are different languages.

Ukrainians speak a Russian language. There's Ukraine's Russian ("Ukrainian"), Belorussia's Russian ("Belorussian"), Carpathian Russian ("Rusyn"), and Moscovian Russian ("Russian"). All are Russian languages descended from Old Russian.

Romanians are not Romans. Roman is not an ethnicity, but a citizenship. Greeks were also Romans and called themselves as such for centuries (Romaioi). Roman state is long gone, so Romanians can't be Roman. Romanians do have ancestry from Roman citizens, just like Ukrainians have ancestry from Kievan Rus, but they're not Russians.

It was both. If you went to Italy in the Middle Ages and asked a local "What is your ethnicity/nation?". Then he would reply, "I'm a Roman". Technically, Romanian is also both an ethnicity and citizenship. Ethnic Romanians of Romania are both Romanians by ethnicity and citizenship whereas Szeklers are Romanian only by citizenship. The reason Romanians refer to their ethnicity as Roman in their language is because that's what their ancestors identified as ethnically.

What ethnicity do you think most Roman colonists of Dacia (of Italian origin) were if not ethnic Roman? Definitely not "ethnic Italian".

Greeks didn't assimilate into the Roman culture but kept their own culture (while borrowing from the Romans). In Romania, the Dacians ceased to exist and were replaced with Romans (culturally/ethnically). The same didn't happen with Greeks. Furthermore, the Greeks stopped calling themselves Romans. So if they were

However, if you want to stick with the idea that Roman was a purely legal term and didn't have any ethnic basis, then you can't compare it to Ruski since Ruski was definitely an ethnic term.

[Dušan]

They should stay apart but should recognize each other. There are bigger fish to fry these days.

Yes. I respect ordinary Catholic believers, but churches are different and we Orthodox as a minority have to save our specific identity, spirituality, traditions.

[catgeorge]

There will never be a merger of the two - ever.

Orthodox traditions are too deep (New Testament)

Mutual respect and love for god and having Christ in your heart is all that really matters everything else is too political started by the Catholic Church.

[ixulescu]

Like how the western part of Russia was occupied by Lithuania following the Mongol invasion?

Also, Russia took back some land from Lithuania after beating them in a war. These people now identify as ethnic Russians. The only difference between these people and Ukrainians/Belorussians is that one stayed part of the PLC while the other didn't.

Actually that's not really correct. Belarusians and Rusyns lived in PLC, while Ukrainians in Southwest Russia, as refugees fleeing Tatars/Mongols. Regardless, Ukrainians felt as a separate ethnicity since centuries. Things are more confusing with Belarusians, I won't comment on that.[/QUOTE]

Ukrainians speak a Russian language. There's Ukraine's Russian ('Ukrainian'), Belorussia's Russian ('Belorussian'), Carpathian Russian ('Rusyn'), and Moscovian Russian ('Russian'). All are Russian languages descended from Old Russian.

Ukrainians speak an East Slavic language, very different from Russian. I understand some conversation in Russian, I don't understand any Ukrainian.

It was both. If you went to Italy in the Middle Ages and asked a local "What is your ethnicity/nation?". Then he would reply, "I'm a Roman". Technically, Romanian is also both an ethnicity and citizenship. Ethnic Romanians are both Romanians by ethnicity and citizenship whereas Szeklers are Romanian only by citizenship. The reason Romanians refer to their ethnicity as Roman in their language is because that's what their ancestors identified as ethnically.

What ethnicity do you think most Roman colonists of Dacia (of Italian origin) were if not ethnic Roman? Definitely not "ethnic Italian".

Greeks didn't assimilate into the Roman culture but kept their own culture (while borrowing from the Romans). In Romania, the Dacians ceased to exist and were replaced with Romans (culturally/ethnically). The same didn't happen with Greeks. Furthermore, the Greeks stopped calling themselves Romans. So if they were

However, if you want to stick with the idea that Roman was a purely legal term and didn't have any ethnic basis, then you can't compare it to Ruski since Ruski was definitely an ethnic term.

Nope, Roman was a citizenship, not an ethnicity. You're conflating Latin with Roman - Latin was an ethnicity, Roman was a citizenship. However, during Byzantine time, Roman label became closer to an ethnicity, because Eastern Roman empire controlled a small area and the ethnicities in it mixed for a long time. Greeks didn't call themselves Greeks during the Byzantine era, but Romaioi. They retook the "Greek" name during their fight for independence 200 years ago, because by that time even Turks considered themselves Roman successors