Can Eastern Orthodox prove they’re the One True Church?

[Nine_Two]

So since this thread has turned into preconception after preconception being piled one on top of another without waiting for an answer - particularly when those accusations have nothing to do with the OP, I’m going to quit answering them.

If you want a discussion on how we tell break away branches away from the church, please start a thread, make a comment, and wait for an answer. If that answer doesn’t answer another situation, bring it forward.

But when you throw everything out at once it is impossible to answer every concern in a coherent manner. Especially when they are going so off topic from the OP.

But before you ask “how do you tell which one is correct”, do as I said in my first post. How do you tell who is the real pope between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Gregory XVIII or Pope Krav I, or Pope Michael I.
Because the answer to that is generally the same.

 

[L_piperatus]

A Holy Synod is the governing body of a Church. The Synod held at Brest was a synod of an autonomous church. Only an autocephalous church could make such a decision. So no, they were illegitimate.

Thanks for the explanation! I was unaware of this distinction.

 

[Nine_Two]

Thanks for the explanation! I was unaware of this distinction.

It is important to be aware that a Holy Synod is not just a gathering of bishops, a Holy Synod is the governing body of a local Church. A group of bishops cannot just break from their Holy Synod and form their own.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I have yet another problem Holy Synod-wise. The Holy Synod of ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) decided that Moscow Patriarch (MP) Sergius has fallen into the Bolshevik heresy in 1927, thus the Moscow Patriarchate ceased to be Orthodox. Then, and ever since, ROCOR operated its own Holy Synod. ROCOR priests forbade their faithful to present themselves for Holy Communion in New Calendar (Greek, Antiochian, etc) EO Churches, they forbade them both before and after ROCOR’s 2006 reunion with the MP, and I trust that ROCOR’s priests acted and continue to act according to the official guidelines of ROCOR’s Holy Synod.

No, this is also untrue. ROCOR priests are not allowed to forbid their faithful from communion in other canonical Orthodox Churches.

Thus, my question is this: is ROCOR part of the True Church, according to those New Calendar EO Churches in which ROCOR’s faithful are forbidden, by ROCOR’s priests, to partake in Holy Communion?

This is untrue.

I will add that ROCOR does NOT believe that New Calendar Churches, as well as churches that have pews to sit in, and musical instruments (organs etc) other than the human voice, are part of the True Church.

No, they do not. Where do you get this stuff? Do you just enjoy talking about stuff that you have no real knowledge about or what?

 

[Shiranui117]

No, this is also untrue. ROCOR priests are not allowed to forbid their faithful from communion in other canonical Orthodox Churches.

This is untrue.

No, they do not. Where do you get this stuff? Do you just enjoy talking about stuff that you have no real knowledge about or what?

I think they just forget that ROCOR was reconciled to the Russian Orthodox Church years ago.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is worth noting that like ROCOR was back in the 70s, there are also groups of irregular canonical status within Catholicism (like SSPX), where it is not clear if they are in schism, how the issues might be resolved, and what their canonical status will be when they become ‘regular’. Let’s be fair folks, this is simply a dirty and dishonest polemical tactic that L piperatus is engaging in, and I rather dislike it.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

There’s a Calendar schism going on within the EO Churches, and who decides who’s on the right side, and who’s on the wrong side of the schism?

The simplest way to resolve this is to judge a tree by its fruits. I can show you dozens of glorified elders (i.e. those who have seen the uncreated light) in so-called “World” Orthodoxy. I have yet to see such a figure appear in the various zealot old calendarist sects.

 

[FrKimel]

Can Eastern Orthodox prove they’re the One True Church?

I hope not.

 

[GaryTaylor]

They also officially reunited with us at Council of Florence, too.
HOWEVER, having been taught centuries of hatred of the Papacy and of the Catholic Church, most of the priests and people in the East rejected the Council of Florence’s
reunion agreement, and the schism continued.

In 1960s, the Roman Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople,
the ONLY TWO MEN WITH THE RIGHT TO DO SO,
REMOVED and CONSIGNED TO OBLIVION, the mutual Excommunications of 1041 A.D., which caused the official schism in the first place.

So, the proper authorities of both communions removed the mutual excommunications.
We Catholics no longer regard the Eastern Orthodox as excommunicated.

Can they prove that they are the true church? Only by ignoring many, many teachings of many of the church’s Sainted early Fathers regarding the papacy. And they, if scholarly, also know that Purgatory is not a roman Papal invention, either, it was widely taught early on. But the terms in the early church were never clearly defined by the theologians of both east and west, regarding this purification, and hence their strong disagreement with it today, despite the fact that it was held by some of the greatest saints of the Undivided Early Church for SEVERAL CENTURIES before the division ever took place.

What CAN the orthodox prove? They can PROVE:

1. they have VALID apostolic succession of their bishops and priests.
2. they have VALID sacraments, ALL SEVEN OF THEM.
3. all of their basic doctrines stem from early church teachings and councils.
   This does not mean that doctrinal development, as many of their theologians assert,
   is an illegitimate concept or that even a point in a creed cannot be more precisely clarified
   (their basis for rejecting the filioque clause is that is not specified in the original Nicene Creed, which states that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” But this is faulty logic, for the creed does not say, “who proceeds ONLY from the Father” — that would prove their position conclusively).
   Because the Orthodox Churches are so very catholic, in all their basic Orders, sacraments, beliefs and practices, they were horrified and outraged in the 16th century,
   when the “Reformers” of the protestant revolt sent emissaries to their patriarchs, urging them - the orthodox!! - to join the Reformation, which they quickly and loudly denounced
   as a HERESY (to their great credit, God bless them for it).

Sounds good. The teachings on purgatory directly relate to Bible and also to prayer for the dead, there are so many verse’s which relate OT/NT in this regard. Not to distract from the point you made in regards.

Peace

 

[johnnykins]

Where faith is concerned nothing can be proven.

However before I make an attempt:
Do you agree that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were, together, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church prior to the Great Schism?

If you agree with this (and it is a teaching of your church),

then what must be proven is the nature of the Church prior to the Great Schism, i.e. was it concilliar, vs. monarchical.

If it can be shown that the Church was monarchical prior to the great schism, it stands to reason that Rome is the True Church. However if it can be shown that the Church was concilliar prior to the Great Schism, it stands to reason that the Orthodox Church is the True Church.

Do you agree with this basis?

If not, why?

Oh my - so many places to go. Do you agree that the ONE Great Church held ecumenical councils - which Church has continued to do so? the one that has not must not be the True Church, i guess

Do you agree that rejecting an ecumenical council removes a group from the Church like the non-Chalcedonians? Which group left the Church by rejecting Florence? It must not be the True church - it must be schismatic or worse.

Which Church acts like the early church that had the power to institute vestments, anaphora and incense in worship and set a calendar - and today retains the right and ability to change the form of worship and set a calendar? The one that has calcified certainly can’t be a living spiration of the Most High God, but must be a relic of the living True Church.

Which church reflects to early church where leadership was vested in Peter and later Bishops of Rome? Separated from its head, that Church must not be the True Church.

There are all manner of ways or addressing you pitiful polemic. It’s a shame you have to go there. You want straw men - I’ll give you straw men. Beam/mote guy!

 

[johnnykins]

So since this thread has turned into preconception after preconception being piled one on top of another without waiting for an answer - particularly when those accusations have nothing to do with the OP, I’m going to quit answering them.

If you want a discussion on how we tell break away branches away from the church, please start a thread, make a comment, and wait for an answer. If that answer doesn’t answer another situation, bring it forward.

But when you throw everything out at once it is impossible to answer every concern in a coherent manner. Especially when they are going so off topic from the OP.

But before you ask “how do you tell which one is correct”, do as I said in my first post. How do you tell who is the real pope between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Gregory XVIII or Pope Krav I, or Pope Michael I.
Because the answer to that is generally the same.

Same as how you tell vagante bishops from - non-vagante?

 

[johnnykins]

Please remember to continue to be charitable to our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and their rich Church history, we we share in part with them.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_ongyVeSbT78/SGYH-zTfYZI/AAAAAAAAAio/jdE9ub4_5Pc/s200/Peter&Paul_Ding6x8.jpg

One would hope they’d do the same - but history on this forum is perhaps a teacher in that regard.

 

[johnnykins]

It is determined the same way it is in the Catholic Church.

There are several men who claim to be pope at present, how do you tell which one is the true Roman Catholic Church?

Simple, it is the one that actually has the chain of legitimacy.

Same way in Orthodoxy. A Bishop who disagrees with his Holy Synod and decides to go off and claim to be the True Church, is no longer an Orthodox Bishop, as is the case with the Old Calendarists.

So a group that rejects an Ecumenical council such as Chalcedon or Florence is likewise no longer part of the True Church -I guess…

 

[johnnykins]

It is important to be aware that a Holy Synod is not just a gathering of bishops, a Holy Synod is the governing body of a local Church. A group of bishops cannot just break from their Holy Synod and form their own.

So a group of Bishops cannot just reject an Ecumenical Council, e.g., Florence. OK

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Do you agree that rejecting an ecumenical council removes a group from the Church like the non-Chalcedonians? Which group left the Church by rejecting Florence? It must not be the True church - it must be schismatic or worse.

How can Ferrara-Florence be called “Ecumenical”? Not only did it fail at teaching Orthodox doctrine, but it wasn’t even called by the Roman Emperor.

Also, why has Rome reversed its position on Constantinople IV (879-880) and thus rejected it? It seems to me that it is Rome who has rejected an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Publisher]

Can Eastern Orthodox prove they’re the One True Church?

Prove to whom? A Catholic…or for themselves. My guess would be they can “prove” it as much as a Catholic can…or Mormon…or Jehovah’s Witness…Muslim…or any other faith tradition which claims to be the “one true” faith tradition…it really is going to depend with whom they are trying to “prove” the premise…and how dispostioned and receptive the prospective convert would be.

One cannot “prove” faith…often times it’s a matter of how credible the arguements are and how dispositioned they are to the “proof”.

 

[johnnykins]

How can Ferrara-Florence be called “Ecumenical”? Not only did it fail at teaching Orthodox doctrine, but it wasn’t even called by the Roman Emperor.

Also, why has Rome reversed its position on Constantinople IV (879-880) and thus rejected it? It seems to me that it is Rome who has rejected an Ecumenical Council.

Of course it taught orthodox (small letter) doctrine and the Emperor was present. The orthodox doctrine was rejected much like the non-Chalcedonians rejected Chalcedon.

Hmmmm 879-880 Still one Church and Rome can reject a council - QED Rome’s power to approve/confirm Ecumenical Councils - and the East acquiesced.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Of course it taught orthodox (small letter) doctrine and the Emperor was present. The orthodox doctrine was rejected much like the non-Chalcedonians rejected Chalcedon.

Hmmmm 879-880 Still one Church and Rome can reject a council - QED Rome’s power to approve/confirm Ecumenical Councils - and the East acquiesced.

Except that Pope John’s legates accepted it, and Pope John himself never protested.

 

[johnnykins]

Except that Pope John’s legates accepted it, and Pope John himself never protested.

well, history is confusing. Are you claiming this as the 8th ecumenical council? I thought Orthodoxy only accepted 7 - or is it 9 or even 10?

Further, legates are not the Pope and the history on its acceptance is unclear at best. Certainly the Orthodox want it accepted - I guess as some sort of Synod since most do not include it among the Ecumenical Councils. I suppose the counter argument is that Rome wanted to reject it once it became clearer what it said. Which Rome did in fact do. Hmmm - again a Pope can reject a council as authoritative.

tell me is there any single criterion for how the Orthodox determine a Council is authoritative? I’m aware of none. How do you know those who reject Chalcedon are in error? It seems to me that at Florence - with the Emperor present and approving - all the bishops but one accepted it. Only later did the east reject it. Seems to me that no other Council was so rejected, which tells me that the Eastern Orthodox are not “orthodox” but are like the non-Chalcedonians in error. perhaps it was a semantic or political thing? But if the EO can reject Florence, why can’t the Orientals reject Chalcedon?

It is Rome that has accepted all the ecumenical councils and EO has gone off into heterodoxy.

 

[Nine_Two]

Oh my - so many places to go. Do you agree that the ONE Great Church held ecumenical councils - which Church has continued to do so? the one that has not must not be the True Church, i guess

Do you agree that rejecting an ecumenical council removes a group from the Church like the non-Chalcedonians? Which group left the Church by rejecting Florence? It must not be the True church - it must be schismatic or worse.

Which Church acts like the early church that had the power to institute vestments, anaphora and incense in worship and set a calendar - and today retains the right and ability to change the form of worship and set a calendar? The one that has calcified certainly can’t be a living spiration of the Most High God, but must be a relic of the living True Church.

Which church reflects to early church where leadership was vested in Peter and later Bishops of Rome? Separated from its head, that Church must not be the True Church.

There are all manner of ways or addressing you pitiful polemic. It’s a shame you have to go there. You want straw men - I’ll give you straw men. Beam/mote guy!

Excuse me?

I didn’t make a single argument in that post you’re quoting. I asked questions by which a basis of discussion on the questions could be established.
And lacking an argument of any sort, it certainly WAS NOT a polemic.

If you can’t be civil, please don’t bother replying to my posts.