Can Catholics disprove Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Wandile]

I think people are going about this the wrong way. It’s fairly easy to prove the EO are not the true church founded by Our Lord but are a schismatic body with a few errors in faith.

If you want to find the true church. There are two approaches to be used :

• Petrine primacy which has largely been debated here

AND

• Consistnecy of Faith

I think the latter is easier. Christ’s true church will always teach the true faith unwaveringly and never change her dogmas.

One of the biggest changes the EO made was overturning the consistent traditional and scriptural teaching concerning marriage.

Our lord said :

“ And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. “

• Matthew 19:9

OR

“And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

• Mark 10:11-12

It’s clear as day that remarriage was forbidden and the early councils and writings of the church fathers all understood this passage this way by and large with the exception of one or two fathers like St Basil.

The EO around the time of Justian changed this teaching and started permitting multiple marriages while their spouses still lived (up to 3 for a person). They still practice this today and are contemplating allowing this for their priests too. This is their official endorsed church practice.

The Catholic Church forbids remarriage as long as your spouse still lives unless it can be proved that the marriage was indeed invalid (a declaration of nullity). In fact of all the apostolic churches only the EO have failed to hold onto the traditional apostolic and scriptural teaching on marriage.

Christ’s Church can never and will never contradict his words for the Church is pillar and foundation of truth as St Paul said. Thus the EO, in contradicting our Lords commandment on marriage, have infact, shown themslesves to not be His church.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Undortunately that is the case. It could be argued that that is technically illicit, but that’s a topic for another time.

 

[ziapueblo]

You’re saying that it’s unfortunate that we recognize the Orthodox as a “true Church?”

ZP

 

[semper_catholicus]

No that is not what I’m saying.

There are not multiple true Churches. There is but one true Church and the Orthodox separated themselves from it.

 

[steve-b]

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.

JPII the Great, apologized to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I for sacking Constantinople , in 1204 , by Catholic Crusaders. Bartholomew accepts the apology News Features | Catholic Culture

However,

Where was Bartholomew’s apology for 22 years earlier in 1182, in Constantinople for Byzantine Massacre of Latins in Constantinople 1182 if anyone has that apology please post it with reference properly referenced.

That massacre was far worse than the sacking of Constantinople in terms of loss of lives

 

[Babaganoush]

A reference isn’t a contributor. Those authors mentioned at the bottom didn’t contribute to the article. Those are external references to other publications.

 

[steve-b]

A reference isn’t a contributor. Those authors mentioned at the bottom didn’t contribute to the article. Those are external references to other publications.

A footnote shows the relevant source(s) in what was referenced, that lets the reader know where certain material used in that particular work / point came from. Therefore the reference gives the work / point credibility. Without a reference, properly referenced, the work in question, is just a personal opinion. And therefore a reference contributes greatly to one’s point being made.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Excuse me, but I am Ukrainian Greek Catholic. I am NOT a member of a “sect”. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is one of the Eastern Catholic Churches (NOT sects) in full communion with the Holy See. It grieves me deeply that you would even use that term.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

To the best of my knowledge, when a priest’s wife dies, THAT’S celibacy takes effect. C.f… Ephesians 5.

 

[eagerbeaver]

Masihi lives in a country without either Catholic and Orthodox Churches, yet he believes in Christ and is a Christian. His knowledge of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy come from his reading - he has no practical experience of either.

Remember there are many good and faithful Catholics who also have no knowledge of Eastern Catholics - and indeed don’t believe them to be ‘proper’ Catholics because , and I’m quoting what has been said to me in the past , " How can they be proper Catholics - their priests are married. "

 

[ziapueblo]

The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be “Sister Churches”, as outlined in the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio. The Catholic Church has also declared that the Orthodox Churches have true orders and sacraments, and allows Orthodox Christians to receive the sacraments in Catholic churches, and vice versa. It could hardly do that if the Orthodox were “outside” the Church. And since the Orthodox are considered by Rome to be “true Churches”, and since the Church is one, they must, of course, be Catholic, too (just as they confess in the Creed), and that the separation between us and them is WITHIN, not FROM the Catholic Church.
ZP

 

[semper_catholicus]

It is possible to have valid sacraments outside of the True Church.

The Orthodox were once united with Rome, but now they’re in schism. Just because they have valid sacraments and we’re once in communion with Rome doesn’t mean they’re in communion now.

 

[Wandile]

That’s not what is meant by “true” churches. In that document a true church simply means a valid organization with valid orders and sacraments and apostolic succession. Thus they can truly be called churches.

True churches has no bearing on their membership of the Catholic Church. It’s a term used to juxtapose them from Protestant “churches” which can’t properly/truly be called churches. That’s why they are called “ecclesial communities” instead.

However there is only one Church of Christ and it is the Catholic Church. Dominus Iesus already outlined that the EO are not members of the church but are very close to communion as compared to other Christian communities.

 

[Wandile]

It is possible to have valid sacraments outside of the True Church.

The Orthodox were once united with Rome, but now they’re in schism. Just because they have valid sacraments and we’re once in communion with Rome doesn’t mean they’re in communion now.

Just to add on to this excellent point, St Augustine said;

”outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”
(Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

 

[ziapueblo]

I never said that we were in full communion with the Orthodox. We are at the least an imperfect communion.

ZP

 

[Margaret_Ann]

I understand what you’re saying and you may be right about M. What REALLY irks me is that 50+ years after VII, most Roman Catholics are still ignorant about the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The last decree of VII is Orientalium Ecclesiarium - the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The only clergy I know who are familiar with the Eastern Catholic Churches are the SSPX.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Thank you for posting that quote from St. Augustine! I’ve tried googling St. Augustine quotes and it NEVER shows up. You’re a blessing.

 

[Vonsalza]

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

Someone obviously forgot to tell Paul!

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

“Intetesting” interpretation…

They were silent because of Barnabus and Paul.

Please, reread the actual text.

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?

And how, exactly, does that prove Petrine supremacy rather than primacy???

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?

Same reply. I don’t see supremacy, here. Particularly as Peter wasn’t called alone.

Primacy is the only argument you can make here.

 

[Vonsalza]

Naturally it goes without saying that the Orthodox also claim to be this Catholic Church.

 

[steve-b]

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

Answered here

Vonsalza:

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

I can show other sources that actually have higher statistics

Vonsalza:

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.

Reference please

Vonsalza:

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’m not arguing that point. The crusaders sacked Constantinople because of a quid pro quo agreement gone bad.

Vonsalza:

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.

it is estimated that up to 60,000 Latins lived in Constantinople.[1] in 1182

Footnote 1: The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages: 950-1250. Cambridge University Press. 1986. pp. 506–508.

The numbers mentioned then, in the article I posted, were not bogus .