Can Catholics disprove Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Vonsalza]

Again, this interpretation is the one even Afanassieff says needs to be ruled out.

That Peter can err? Not at all - it is one of the fundamental bases on which we juxtapose Orthodoxy and Catholicism. If he couldn’t, they wouldn’t exist as discrete entities.

It is why, as one example, St. Agatho, in his letter to the Third Council of Constantinople…

For the umpteenth time, these are radically different periods in history from the present. Ratzinger/Benedict is even happy to admit as much in his interview. He frequently states that the Orthodox maintain a view of the papacy that is fairly in-line with the papacy of the first millennium.

It is not the same as the papacy at the close of the second millennium.

As an aside, EO theologians say the Church is fully embodied in one see (in fact, they say it is in each individual see–and we agree with that provided that see is in communion with the one Church that includes the primacy).

Certainly, but one body can err - as you’re happy to point out from the examples where Orthodox churches will break communion with one that is viewed as breaking Orthodoxy. Even as that body is in error, “The Church” is still preserved in the other Orthodox Churches that withhold communion.

Again, the Church of Rome was given all sorts of blessings and endowments so we couldn’t miss its importance.

The absolute greatest of all being the Imperial (and thus logistical) capital of the empire of the day.

This is again confusing the “can” with the “should.”

No, that’s self-serving spin.

Victor over-reached and got his hand slapped for it. He violated “collegiality” in a day when it still had teeth.

The problem is when you can’t receive communion in some of them.

It’s only a problem when its your church that is in question of breaking orthodoxy.

In brief cases like the Church of Jerusalem in the early aughts, there is an issue that gets fairly quickly worked out and communion resumes - the church rejoices.

In rare cases like Ukraine, the heresy endures and communion is withheld indefinitely. It’s not at all dissimilar from the Catholic relationship with Catholic spin-offs like Lutherans and Anglicans.

 

[steve-b]

glorybe:

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.

Interesting fact, one of the earliest names used to identify the early Christians was “Followers of The Way”.

AND the Church was named

From the Greek translation

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.

 

[steve-b]

I’ve challenged Steve on those number before as they have absolutely no basis.

But they support the narrative he likes so he keeps using them.

What can ya do?

Is this by chance the article you disagree with and the internal numbers mentioned? Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople by Byzantine soldiers and citizens

If you have a problem with this article, and the internal numbers mentioned, then Check the qualifications of the 5 contributors to the article at the bottom of the article. One of them is Orthodox and author Bp Kalistos Ware,

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I’ve challenged Steve on those number before as they have absolutely no basis.

But they support the narrative he likes so he keeps using them.

What can ya do?

Is this by chance the article you disagree with and the internal numbers mentioned? Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople by Byzantine soldiers and citizens

If you have a problem with this article, and the internal numbers mentioned, then Check the qualifications of the 5 contributors to the article at the bottom of the article. One of them is Orthodox and author Bp Kalistos Ware,

Oh, that same old canard that we lampooned last time you pulled it out? Let me see if I can remember the last discussion about that joke…
The author of the article himself refers to the 50,000 number as inaccurate (he refers to the Latin massacre as “thousands”). “the massacre of the Westerners in Constantinople in 1182 … a nightmarish massacre of thousands”

On Catholic scholar Will Durant’s laughable number of just 2000 dying in Latin sack of Constantinople - the anonymous author doesn’t cite the number and I can’t find it anywhere - even searching Durant’s works.

---

But best of all is your statement “If you have a problem with this article, and the internal numbers mentioned, then Check the qualifications of the 5 contributors to the article at the bottom of the article. One of them is Orthodox and author Bp Kalistos Ware,”

First off, the “contributors” didn’t contribute. They were data-mined/cherry picked. I’m sure none of them were aware of the bizarrely anonymous (actual academic publications are never anonymous) author’s use of their material was certainly without their consent. Contributors? Really???

However, I did enjoy one aspect of your laughable reference. The generic clip of the lady on the front page is very pretty. And I might actually click the “Love Definition” link someday after I’ve got my anti-virus and spyware in tip-top shape.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Seems legit…

 

[Masihi]

Latin sources themselves say about 40% of the population of the city was wiped out in the sack. And the rest left, leaving the city’s population 20%-30% of its original size.

 

[Roguish]

I just wanted to comment on the argument by name.

Good point. The word “catholic” is in fact an adjective, not a name at all, and it means universal, ubiquitous, complete. It annoys Eastern Orthodox considerably when Roman Catholics assume that the word “catholic” references the RCC only, and this irritation is understandable. To adduce the use of the word “catholic” in the creed, which for the Eastern Orthodox is the same except for the filioque clause, as proof that the RCC is the true church, is a mistake, for the Church headed up by the bishop of Rome is called the Roman Catholic Church. It is not called The Catholic Church.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

I just wanted to comment on the argument by name.

Good point. The word “catholic” is in fact an adjective, not a name at all, and it means universal, ubiquitous, complete. It annoys Eastern Orthodox considerably when Roman Catholics assume that the word “catholic” references the RCC only, and this irritation is understandable. To adduce the use of the word “catholic” in the creed, which for the Eastern Orthodox is the same except for the filioque clause, as proof that the RCC is the true church, is a mistake, for the Church headed up by the bishop of Rome is called the Roman Catholic Church. It is not called The Catholic Church.

I still disavow the name argument, but just to state the obvious, the RCC considers the body of churches in communion with Rome to be the Catholic Church you mention above, along with the Church Triumphant and Church Penitent. Those eoth valid baptism and not in communion with Rome, and indeed those which aren’t actually churches (no bishop, no priest), are considered to have varying levels of lack of unity with the Catholic Church. In the case of the Orthodox, the RCC considers the difference so very incredibly slight it isn’t opposed to sharing the Blessed Sacrament with them.

The Orthodox, of course, see it differently, and consider themselves to be the Catholic Church (recognizing that this gets more nuanced and not all Orthodox churches even share communion with each other).

 

[Vonsalza]

Wesrock:

(recognizing that this gets more nuanced and not all Orthodox churches even share communion with each other).

I think this has become a little more overblown on CAF that it is in reality, offered in charity.

I’m not aware of any major communions that currently don’t recognize each other. In the case of Ukraine, it’s nearly identical to the situation between the Catholic Church and the Old Catholics.

I think Constantinople doesn’t currently accept the autocephaly (independence) of the OCA, but there’s no breach of communion there afaik.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Vonsalza:

I’ve challenged Steve on those number before as they have absolutely no basis.

But they support the narrative he likes so he keeps using them.

What can ya do?

Is this by chance the article you disagree with and the internal numbers mentioned? Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople by Byzantine soldiers and citizens

If you have a problem with this article, and the internal numbers mentioned, then Check the qualifications of the 5 contributors to the article at the bottom of the article. One of them is Orthodox and author Bp Kalistos Ware,

Oh, that same old canard that we lampooned last time you pulled it out? Let me see if I can remember the last discussion about that joke…
The author of the article himself refers to the 50,000 number as inaccurate (he refers to the Latin massacre as “thousands”). “the massacre of the Westerners in Constantinople in 1182 … a nightmarish massacre of thousands”

On Catholic scholar Will Durant’s laughable number of just 2000 dying in Latin sack of Constantinople - the anonymous author doesn’t cite the number and I can’t find it anywhere - even searching Durant’s works.

---

But best of all is your statement “If you have a problem with this article, and the internal numbers mentioned, then Check the qualifications of the 5 contributors to the article at the bottom of the article. One of them is Orthodox and author Bp Kalistos Ware,”

First off, the “contributors” didn’t contribute. They were data-mined/cherry picked. I’m sure none of them were aware of the bizarrely anonymous (actual academic publications are never anonymous) author’s use of their material was certainly without their consent. Contributors? Really???

However, I did enjoy one aspect of your laughable reference. The generic clip of the lady on the front page is very pretty. And I might actually click the “Love Definition” link someday after I’ve got my anti-virus and spyware in tip-top shape.

Seems legit…

Your insults and lack of charity aside, for your information , Orthodox Bp Ware did contribute to this article in his Book that was referenced in the footnote at the bottom of the article. He clearly knew the episode and wrote on it.

 

[Vonsalza]

He did. So much to say that Catholics and Orthodox both have things to apologize for in their histories.

Apologies for being so uncharitable, Steve. But those numbers are bad and your source for them is worse.

In all reality, maybe as many as 10k were killed in the Massacre of the Latins. And in all reality, probably well-over 100k people were killed in the Latin sack of Constantinople.

Saying one justified the other would be similar to saying the 2500 dead at Pearl Harbor justified the 150k-250k dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s just such a baldly untrue, ideologically motivated idea that offends all good reason.

I recommend if you want to keep using those genuinely bogus numbers at least cite their original source. Your present source is miles away from credible, as I unkindly pointed out.

 

[AnonymousSinner]

Great atrocities have been committed on both sides, undoubtedly. Regardless of the exact number of people killed, the Sack of Constantinople cannot be justified, and Catholics ought to express regret for it.

However, this has little do with the doctrinal accuracy of the two religions. Does the sin of Judas prove that Christianity is false? Of course not.

I recommend that we shift the focus of this thread to discuss the doctrinal issues to keep with OP’s original intentions.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Show me where is found the the rock upon which the Orthodox Church is built.

There isn’t really a principle of unity in the Orthodox Church. It’s just like a bunch of regional churches which are pretty exclusive.

 

[Vonsalza]

Show me where is found the the rock upon which the Orthodox Church is built.

Faith in Jesus of Nazareth.

There isn’t really a principle of unity in the Orthodox Church. It’s just like a bunch of regional churches which are pretty exclusive.

The Orthodox have a common Holy Tradition which is analogous to your Deposit of Faith.

I’m not sure how Orthodoxy is exclusive. Could you develop this?

 

[semper_catholicus]

The Protestants would say that they have faith Jesus. Doesn’t mean that they’re apart of the true Church. Faith in Christ was not the rock upon which the Church was built.

 

[Vonsalza]

St. Augustine in his Retractations doesn’t advocate your view.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Why do you say that?

 

[AnonymousSinner]

Of course, probably the biggest difference between the Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is the latter would view St. Peter as a first-among-equals with the other apostles, an error which is contrary to the Bible as this video shows.

Consider the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Everyone is debating until Peter stands up, and then everyone is silent. Peter has the final say.

It reminds me of what happened at the Council of Chalcedon, which both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox accept as the Fourth Ecumenical Council. At the Council, when Pope Leo’s tome was read, they exclaimed,

““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 spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).”

Also consider the Letter of St. Peter Chrysologus (regognized as a Saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church) to Eutyches (the Monophysite heretic). Chrysologus writes,

“We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome.”

By the way, I got these quotes from this article about Chalcedon. I recommend reading the entire article, if you have time. It should become clear that Pope Leo was seen as the Head of the entire Church, not just a first-among-equals.

 

[Vonsalza]

Didn’t you already post this?

Consider the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Everyone is debating until Peter stands up, and then everyone is silent. Peter has the final say.

Respectfully it appears James - the host of the council - had the last word in the text.

Also consider the Letter of St. Peter Chrysologus

Sure. Before the schism was formed, primacy resided in the Roman bishop.

It should become clear that Pope Leo was seen as the Head of the entire Church, not just a first-among-equals.

A “primacy of honor” is also another Orthodox description of the pre-schism Roman seat.

Leo “the great” is a good study on the development and centralization of papal power.

 

[AnonymousSinner]

When I said “Peter has the final say,” what I meant is that Peter defines the doctrine and nobody questions/contradicts it.

And all the multitude held their peace . . . (Acts 15:12)

James deferred to Peter’s doctrinal decision.

Moreover, the language in the Bible is pretty clear that Peter has more than just a “primacy of honor,” but actually has a supremacy which sets him above all the other apostles.

Several verses say, “Peter and the rest of the apostles” did such and such. Why not just say, “The apostles” did such and such? Why separate Peter from the rest of the apostles?

Also, consider how Satan has desired to sift the apostles as wheat, but Jesus prays for Peter alone that his faith fails not. Why does he single out Peter like this?

And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you [ὑμᾶς], that he may sift you [ὑμᾶς] as wheat:
But I have prayed for thee [σοῦ], that thy [σου] faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22:31-32)

 

[ziapueblo]

The Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Church is a “true Church” and are “Sister Churches.” I’m sure you know that Rome allows us to receive the Chalice in an Orthodox Church and she allows the Orthodox to receive in our churches.

ZP