Can Catholics disprove Eastern Orthodoxy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Masihi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Masihi said:
You do know the Orthodox Church calls itself the Catholic Church right?
Click to expand...
In actuality, That would require being in full communion with the successor to Peter.
 
Last edited:
Not if the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church and your Church isn’t.
 
Masihi said:
And do you have proof that Rome is the chair of Peter?
Click to expand...
For 2000 years that has been considered the chair of Peter. Even when the Vatican was under siege, and popes went to Avignon, they returned to Rome.

Ignatius in his letter to the Church of Rome, identifies that Church out of the 6 Churches he writes to, as being the Church that holds the presidency.
 
Last edited:
Orthodox do recognize Rome as holding a special place, not as however having universal authority.
 
That’s not proof if you read the sixth canon of the council of Nicaea it pretty much proves the opposite.
 
AveOTheotokos said:
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

> How “Orthodox” became the proper name of the Eastern Church it is difficult to say. It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius, especially in the East, not with any idea of opposition against the West, but rather as the antithesis to the Eastern heretics — Nestorians and Monophysites.
Click to expand...
If so then it should appear in writing. We know that the early councils don’t identify the Church as the 'Orthodox Church".
40.png
AveOTheotokos:
Gradually, although of course, both East and West always claimed both names, “Catholic” became the most common name for the original Church in the West, “Orthodox” in the East.
Click to expand...
🤔 Yet

there are Eastern Catholics, who never left the Catholic Church. (Syrian Maronites).

If the name Orthodox Church can’t be found in writing, how can one prove it existed
 
Last edited:
Most Eastern Catholic sects were carved out of existing Orthodox Churches.
 
The simplest reason that I reject Orthodoxy is that it separated itself from the prince of the apostles (as St. Chrysostom calls him) and his successors.

I’ve been reading some of the early Church writings, and so far, no apostles are referred to more than Saints Peter and Paul. Of the two, only Peter has been said to have had (and to have) “successors”, and Chrysostom says that Jesus put into his (Peter’s) hands the chief authority “among the brethren”.

There are many issues that keep us separated from one another, but this is by far the largest.
 
For the record, I am Catholic, I wasn’t argueing, just adding information.

The official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is “the Orthodox Catholic Church”, so it could be argued that they view themselves as the Catholic Church, and the word “Orthodox” is just an adjective they use to delineate between themselves and the (in their view) schismatic “Roman Catholic Church”.

Again, I am Catholic and am not validating that claim; rather, I am just adding information to the discussion 😀
 
AveOTheotokos said:
For the record, I am Catholic, I wasn’t argueing, just adding information.
Click to expand...
🤟😎 don’t worry. I’m doing the same
40.png
AveOTheotokos:
The official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is “the Orthodox Catholic Church”, so it could be argued that they view themselves as the Catholic Church, and the word “Orthodox” is just an adjective they use to delineate between themselves and the (in their view) schismatic “Roman Catholic Church”.
Click to expand...
This is from a retired Melkite Bishop. I was quoting from him before he retired. 🙂

Example:
Bp Elya » Are we Orthodox united with Rome?
 
Last edited:
According to the majority of historians Maronites were Monothelites until the Crusades in which they converted to Catholicism. It’s a myth that they never separated, plus I’m part Lebanese so I tend to know these kind of things.
 
Masihi said:
According to the majority of historians Maronites were Monothelites until the Crusades in which they converted to Catholicism. It’s a myth that they never separated, plus I’m part Lebanese so I tend to know these kind of things.
Click to expand...
From New Advent as I posted

Maronite – Never separated from Rome. Maronite Patriarch of Antioch. The liturgical language is Aramaic. The 3 million Maronites are found in Lebanon (origin), Cyprus, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Canada, US, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Australia.

point being made,

While heresies were present, and in every era, Maronites stayed united to Rome.
 
Last edited:
Do you have proof the Maronites were in union with Rome before the crusades.
 
Masihi said:
That’s not proof if you read the sixth canon of the council of Nicaea it pretty much proves the opposite.
Click to expand...
Nope.

It shows other sees have authority over their sees and territiroes. It does NOT override the understanding of the chair of Peter and the Church of Rome.
 
dochawk said:
40.png
steve-b:
It’s NOT plural it’s singular when talking about the see of Peter.
Click to expand...
You better go read your history, including papal writings . . . three of the five Holy Sees have petrine origin . . .
Click to expand...
A bishop’s see is NOT where he was it is where he is. Bishops have been known to move around and relocate… A bishops see is where he is last. In Peter’s case that is Rome. And wherever Peter is, He rules the entire Church.

His see is Rome. He’s buried under the altar of St Peter’s
steve-b said:
Thus they are in schism
Click to expand...
40.png
dochawk:
By that standard, they spent the entire first millennium in schism . . .

hawk
Click to expand...
No. For at least the first 400 years there was unity. Then came the patriarchal system invented by the East

then Card Ratzinger addressed this (approved by Pope John Paul II in the Audience of June 9, 2000. )
The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.
In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]
The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity. from:http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top