M
Masihi
Guest
How do Catholics disapprove the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy to be the true Church?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
E
eagerbeaver
Guest
I think you mean disprove i.e. refute
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
As eagerbeaver said, it looks like you meant disprove / refute.
“Eastern Orthodoxy” as a “Church” didn’t exist in the beginning. We don’t see the name “Orthodox Church” in writing till much later in history. We don’t see the name in the creed. What we see from the beginning is the “Catholic Church”, that Jesus established on Peter and all those in union with Peter. And Jesus wants not just some loose understanding of unity, Jesus wants perfect unity in what He established John 17:20-23 And that same Church is here today with Pope Francis.266th successor to St Peter at the helm
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
I don’t like the name argument. Both churches claim to be the catholic and orthodox church professed by the Church Fathers. The Orthodox churches are legitimate churches that have kept apostolic succession and also kept the deposit of faith, sacramental theology, and so on, very much largely intact. They therefore can claim continuity with the churches established by the apostles.Masihi:
As eagerbeaver said, it looks like you meant disprove / refute.
“Eastern Orthodoxy” as a “Church” didn’t exist in the beginning. We don’t see the name “Orthodox Church” in writing. We don’t see the name in the creed. What we see from the beginning is the “Catholic Church”, that Jesus established on Peter and all those in union with Peter. And Jesus wants not just some loose understanding of unity, Jesus wants perfect unity in what He established John 17:20-23 And that same Church is here today with Pope Francis.266th successor to St Peter at the helm
Now, I agree with you on the unity of the Church, Peter and the Apostolic See as the archetype of bishops and all other sees, etc… but I just wanted to comment on the argument by name.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
They are NOT united to Peter. They broke that connection. Therefore, they are NOT Catholic. And one could say, just thinking out loud, since they are NOT in union with Peter, a definite requirement made by Jesus, how then can they claim to be “orthodox” ?steve-b:
I don’t like the name argument. Both churches claim to be the catholic and orthodox church professed by the Church Fathers. The Orthodox churches are legitimate churches that have kept apostolic succession and also kept the deposit of faith, sacramental theology, and so on, very much largely intact. They therefore can claim continuity with the churches established by the apostles.Masihi:
As eagerbeaver said, it looks like you meant disprove / refute.
“Eastern Orthodoxy” as a “Church” didn’t exist in the beginning. We don’t see the name “Orthodox Church” in writing. We don’t see the name in the creed. What we see from the beginning is the “Catholic Church”, that Jesus established on Peter and all those in union with Peter. And Jesus wants not just some loose understanding of unity, Jesus wants perfect unity in what He established John 17:20-23 And that same Church is here today with Pope Francis.266th successor to St Peter at the helm
It’s NOT plural it’s singular when talking about the see of Peter.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
In a demonstrable, objective way?
No. You cannot disprove Orthodoxy. Or any other faith, for that matter.
But for the Catholic faithful, as you see above, the bar for showing that Orthodoxy is false is set subjectively low.
No. You cannot disprove Orthodoxy. Or any other faith, for that matter.
But for the Catholic faithful, as you see above, the bar for showing that Orthodoxy is false is set subjectively low.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
It is, and always will be, a silly argument. Born in the “finest” traditions of quintessential western legalism.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sure they’re united with Peter. Their’s is a better representation of the Peter that *lead the new Church rather than the post-middle ages Catholic Peter that *rules the Church.
Christ appointed more than one apostle.
Christ appointed more than one apostle.
W
Wesrock
Guest
The “sees” was just a typo. The Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, but they are still legitimate apostolic churches. And Patristics often refer to the “catholic and orthodox church,” which we both claim to be. The origin of the name isn’t what we base our legitimacy on.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Indifferentism / latitudinarianism are errors AND prevalent today
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Spoken like a true Catholic, Steve 
S
steve-b
Guest
understand
For the record, we know “Orthodox Church” appears in writing. So When (dates) are those quotes you mention? And references properly referenced, please
Last edited:
A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
The Catholic encyclopedia mentions it’s use prior to the schism of Photius, but doesn’t list a date:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm
M
Masihi
Guest
You do know the Orthodox Church calls itself the Catholic Church right?
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
You are correct but he phrasing should be changed somewhat. In order to be Catholic a particular Church mush be in communion with Rome, not united to Rome. There is a difference.
Catholic cannot disapprove the claims of the Eastern Orthodox as being a true Church. The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be “Sister Churches” as outlined in the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio. The Catholic Church also declared that the Orthodox Churches have true orders and sacraments.
Last edited:
M
Masihi
Guest
That’s is the question do you have proof the broke communion?
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Jesus established clearly one apostle as leader over all. That was Peter. I’ve given the references many times properly referenced
The Orthodox are NOT united to Peter… Unless they accept the following
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
- Re: Lead: it also encompasses rules, the same Greek word From the Greek NT defines…
- ἡγούμενος = hégeomai from Lk 22: 24-32
- to lead … to go before to be a leader to rule, command to have authority over a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseer or leader of the churches the leader in speech, chief, spokesmana) to rule, govern
- deserves cooperation by those who are led is part of the definition
AND
it refutes the idea that Peter is only first among equals … which is false.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Are they in union with the chair of Peter? No.
M
Masihi
Guest
And do you have proof that Rome is the chair of Peter?
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Re: “sister churches” there are 2 explanationssteve-b:
You are correct but he phrasing should be changed somewhat. In order to be Catholic a particular Church mush be in communion with Rome, not united to Rome. There is a difference.
Catholic cannot disapprove the claims of the Eastern Orthodox as being a true Church. The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be “Sister Churches” as outlined in the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio. The Catholic Church also declared that the Orthodox Churches have true orders and sacraments.
- Status