Can Catholics disprove Eastern Orthodoxy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Masihi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is a modern thing for bishops to move around. The early church condemned bishops moving from one diocese to another. It was condemned by the council of Nicaea. It was a problem for some Christians in the early church. I think it was Gregory of Nysa (maybe nazianzen) who was bishop of a small city, and they tried to make him the bishop of a larger diocese to give him greater authority. It was a big controversy and didn’t workout.
 
The Roman Church always had primacy, but what that meant in the early church was not
What is meant by the current Roman Church. There is debate on what the actual primacy was. Even Pope Benedict/ratzinger made the point of the development of the papacy in the second millennium. The authority of the pope made major developments in the 11th and 12th centuries in relation to secular authorities as a way for local churches to appeal beyond the boundaries of their locality.

A proof of this is seen in the way bishops behaved in the first millennium. There was no compunction about breaking communion with Rome. Many bishops and churches did it in the name of the tradition handed down from the apostles. They may have been wrong in their division, but the fact that they saw nothing wrong with breaking from Rome shows that there was a different perception of the relationship between Rome and the other churches.
 
Babaganoush said:
The Roman Church always had primacy, but what that meant in the early church was not
What is meant by the current Roman Church.
Click to expand...
True. Pope Benedict XVI had stated that in order for reunion to be possible the Papacy would have to return to what it was in the first millennium implying that it has become something that it never was.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
I have. I don’t believe that I have said it was anything more but as you can see in paragraph 20 the document acknowledges, “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.”

In paragraph 20 which is part of the conclusion section it says, " Throughout the first millennium, the Church in the East and the West was united in preserving the apostolic faith, maintaining the apostolic succession of bishops, developing structures of synodality inseparably linked with primacy, and in an understanding of authority as a service ( diakonia ) of love. Though the unity of East and West was troubled at times, the bishops of East and West were conscious of belonging to the one Church."

The final sentence is the most powerful, "On the basis of this common heritage, both must consider how primacy, synodality, and the interrelatedness between them can be conceived and exercised today and in the future."

I am a faithful Catholic. I believe in the importance of the Pope of Rome and that is why I am in a Church that is in communion with him! I pray for full communion between East and West daily!

ZP
Click to expand...
Primacy was already argued by the apostles in the upper room. Jesus answered them. Jesus said One of THEM is the greatest. Jesus named the only apostle among them. It was Peter. Lk 22:24-32

And notice who got the apostles in the argument? SATAN
 
what is there to “disprove”; which i am not 100% sure is even a word

seems to me that there might some ritualistic/authority issues

otherwise; we are all on the same page:

OK soorry about Constantinople 9500 years ago; (oops. we messed up there BAD; very bad)
we believe in the same orthodoxy
 
Last edited:
glorybe said:
40.png
steve-b:
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.
Click to expand...
But it wasn’t the “Catholic Church” in the beginning, was it? I think we were just the “Christian Church”, until the breakaways and we had to further identify ourselves. Am I wrong about that? I’m interested in just reading these answers/conversation (not debating them) because the Russian Orthodox Church has been pulling at me these past two years and I don’t know what to think about it. I’ve talked with the Russian priest and he is as sure of being the true Church as we are. I’m only “listening” here. 😶
Click to expand...
!st century history
(condensed)

The Church has been Catholic from the 1st century. The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means the whole or taken together, = throughout all, or universal. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means & Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 830

One can ask, where does kata holos ekklesia appear in scripture?

From the Greek NT study bible not an English translation
Acts 9:31 “the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς , = the Kataholos Church.

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
ἐκκλησία = church ,
καθ’ = according to ,
ὅλης = whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

The proper name Catholic Church is used by

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch who was bishop from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. ordained by the apostles, and direct disciple of St John. It was in Antioch where the disciples were first called Christian Acts 11:26 Acts 11:26 RSVCE - and when he had found him, he brought - Bible Gateway Ignatius in his writings uses both “Christian” and “Catholic Church” here, (Christian) in (ch 2) and Catholic Church in (ch 8). From his Epistle to the Smyrnæans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm . He also writes schismatics won’t be going to heaven, from his _Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3)_ . http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm . Where would Ignatius learn to teach that warning and consequence for one’s soul, for committing and remaining in the sin of schism / division /schism from the Catholic Church?
 
Babaganoush said:
Yes some of the early councils do call the Church the Orthodox Church. It is in contrast to heterodox Christians, just like the use of the term Catholic was in contrast to local and sectarian groups. Neither of them was a name until much later.

Whether the maronites have always been in communion with Rome is debatable.
Click to expand...
Not to THEM

BTW the source I quoted was a Catholic source.
 
Last edited:
Masihi said:
Canon Six of Nicaea.
Click to expand...
That only shows that those sees have authority. There was no comment in addition about the Petrine office in which we have many examples of that office in the 1st 2 centuries before Nicaea.
 
Babaganoush said:
The Roman Church always had primacy, but what that meant in the early church was not
What is meant by the current Roman Church. There is debate on what the actual primacy was. Even Pope Benedict/ratzinger made the point of the development of the papacy in the second millennium. The authority of the pope made major developments in the 11th and 12th centuries in relation to secular authorities as a way for local churches to appeal beyond the boundaries of their locality.

A proof of this is seen in the way bishops behaved in the first millennium. There was no compunction about breaking communion with Rome. Many bishops and churches did it in the name of the tradition handed down from the apostles. They may have been wrong in their division, but the fact that they saw nothing wrong with breaking from Rome shows that there was a different perception of the relationship between Rome and the other churches.
Click to expand...
Addressed here post #64

Jesus settled the argument the apostle=s were having over who is the greatest among THEM. Satan got them into their argument over primacy. Satan keeps it going.
 
One potential problem is that Eastern Orthodox Churches are generally identified and separated by national boundaries, such that divisions are not necessarily resolvable, and no single voice can speak for all the Churches in a unified manner.
 
brian_custer said:
what is there to “disprove”; which i am not 100% sure is even a word

seems to me that there might some ritualistic/authority issues

otherwise; we are all on the same page:

OK soorry about Constantinople 9500 years ago; (oops. we messed up there BAD; very bad)
we believe in the same orthodoxy
Click to expand...
You never hear from the Byzantines about what THEY did 22 years earlier
Massacre of Latins in Constantinople 1182

Note the footnotes: and the contributors to the article.
 
Last edited:
You mean a small riot started by an illegitimate emperor, compared to a foreign invasion which expelled most of the city’s Greek Orthodox inhabitants and put the rest to the sword or forcibly converted them to Catholicism. The ring leaders of the fourth crusade could care less of the few traders that died 22 years earlier in Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
not an argument
orthos say their church is the orthodox CATHOLIC church
but i can disprove it
with a copypasta
feel free to spam it at orthodox and protestants
Jesus referred to Simon as “kepha”, which in Aramaic means “rock”. It is indisputable and confirmed in John 1:42. Unlike Attic Greek, in Koine Greek, there is no distinction between petra, a feminine noun, and petros, a masculine ending. Petros is merely the masculine neologism created by Our Lord for Simon. Our Lord was making a pun. Would you have Jesus name Peter “Petra” or “Petrina”? If our Lord wanted to make the distinction you Protestants imply, He would have used the word “lithos”, which in Koine Greek means “little rock” or “pebble”. The conferral of the keys and the “binding and loosening” passages have antecedents in the Old Testament (see: Isaiah 22) for the notions of bestowing authority and judgement over the community, stewardship. Also see John 21:16-17. Here is confirmed the above passages by the clear establishment of St. Peter as the shepherd of the flock. A shepherd guides and corrects. I think you Protestants have a problem with submitting to human authority, even when it is God given. It shows a lack of humility, subjectivism, and refusal to accept that Christ established a visible Church complete with governance. You remind me of people who scream, “Jesus, Jesus:, and then oppose His Will. It was Peter and the Apostles that He bestowed His Authority and the guardianship of His Church; not to the Sacred Scriptures (John 20:22)
You can see the name change in John 1:42 that you see in Matthew 16:17-18 just before Jesus gives Cephas/rock the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. In Matthew 16:19, you will see that it was foreshadowed by Isaiah 22:22. This is the exact reason you see the division among Protestants, and even in the Orthodox Church, with Constantinople and Moscow bordering on a schism. Satan uses their pride to convince you that each of you are right dividing you into the thousands upon thousands of man made sects with conflicting doctrine. Your personal interpretations of scripture are meaningless.
Click to expand...
Part 1/2
 
Christ, the Good Shepherd, called Peter to be the chief shepherd of His Church (John 21:15-17). He gave Peter the task of strengthening the other apostles in their faith, ensuring that only what was true (Luke 22:31-32)
Peter lead the Church In proclaiming the Gospel and making decisions (Acts 2:1-41, 15:7-12)
Early Christian writings tell us that Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome continued to exercise Peter’s ministry in the Church. The Pope is the successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome. The world’s other bishops are successors to the apostles in general.
From Chalcedon:
COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
Session 2
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm
After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. PETER HAS THUS SPOKEN THROUGH LEO. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.
To the masses, Jesus spoke in parables, but to His disciples, he spoke plainly. (Mark 4:11, Luke 8:10). He had no qualms about identifying Himself in plain Aramaic: “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes through the Father except through me.” (John 14:6). “today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing (Isaiah)” (Luke 4:21); I AM (John 18:5-8), It is He who is speaking to you” (John 4:25-26). So, why would He be so coy and convoluted in HIs speech and logic when speaking with the twelve? He Himself said, “Let your yes mean yes and your no, no.” (Matthew 5:37) Why mention rock twice in the same sentence unless it refers o the same thing? Why rename Peter at all if it had no meaning? Who did St. Paul go to in Galatians 1:18? Peter.
However, your opinion disregards the very form of the Church which has perdured for almost 2000 years. The Church is Jesus’ earthly, human Body (1 Corinthians 12:27), with Him in charge. When He ascended there was no Bible for all believers to read and interpret for themselves.
Do you honestly think that you would have a Bible today had Jesus not left someone in charge of His Church when He ascended? He couldn’t leave the twelve, in charge, for they argued amongst themselves as to who was the greatest (Mark 9:33-34). Peter.
Click to expand...
 
also daily reminder that the EO allow divorce, contraception, and in some case, abortion

also their priests can remarry
 
Masihi said:
You mean a small riot started by an illegitimate emperor,
Click to expand...
Did you note the numbers being spoken of? And the results? And compare the 2 events?
40.png
Masihi:
compared to a foreign invasion which expelled most of the city’s Greek Orthodox inhabitants and put the rest to the sword or forcibly converted them to Catholicism. The ring leaders of the fourth crusade could care less of the few traders that died 22 years earlier in Constantinople.
Click to expand...
The loss of life and results of the 4th crusade was not even close to the loss of life and results that happened 22 yrs prior in that same city against the Latins.

As for WHY the city was sacked by the crusaders, it was because the deposed emperor wanted to be reinstated. He bribed the crusaders to return him to office. It was a quid pro quo arrangement. Put me back in power I’ll pay you a large sum of money. He was returned to power, but he didn’t pay. So the crusaders took their pay by sacking the city. I’m not making excuses for what happened or what and why they did what they did. Pope Innocent when he found out what the crusaders had done he excommunicated them.
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
40.png
Babaganoush:
The Roman Church always had primacy, but what that meant in the early church was not
What is meant by the current Roman Church.
Click to expand...
True. Pope Benedict XVI had stated that in order for reunion to be possible the Papacy would have to return to what it was in the first millennium implying that it has become something that it never was.

ZP
Click to expand...
Benedict proposed that as a concession. Provocative at that.

Did that work, as in, did unity take place as a result? No

There is a clear message here to take away from this. It has to do with
  1. authority
  2. lack of unity within Orthodoxy
Example:
  • Cardinal Kasper, in 2002, was head of the Vatican office for eccumenism. In 2002 he wrote
    “We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from Zenit, Kasper, 2002
Fast forward 14 yrs from that date
  • Pan Orthodox council meeting Jun 27 2016. “Pan” doesn’t take place. Why?
    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...absence-saves-patriarchate-of-constantinoples. . A Majority of the Orthodox protest the meeting. Making Kaspar’s point about the Russians who make up the majority of Orthodoxy, all the more clear. Who’s in charge ? If everyone is in charge then NO ONE is in charge, and NO ONE speaks for the whole.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top