does the Orthodox church receive as much vitriol as the Catholic Church

[tomarin]

Well, the media too doesn’t really care about it. Media today is unreliable. They don’t want to report the news, they want to custom tailor news to a demographic for ratings. So they only report on things which they feel will get people to watch, not because there is news to report.

It would be nice if a First Lady or some other public figure made it a cause of hers so that the media’s indifference could be challenged.

 

[tomarin]

If simple vitriol is the issue at hand, the Orthodox Church’s chief detractor is the Latin Church.

Can you cite any examples? I thought we were on friendly terms.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It would be nice if a First Lady or some other public figure made it a cause of hers so that the media’s indifference could be challenged.

They have no reason to. Middle East Christians aren’t part of the maligned groups the PC crowd feels they need to protect. They are not blacks or Jews or gays. Seriously, if one person is killed in the Middle East because they are gay, that is all you will see on the news and the entire US military is knocking on the door of whatever country that happened in. But because they are middle east Christians, bah, who cares about them, right? SMH

 

[ConstantineTG]

Can you cite any examples? I thought we were on friendly terms.

Well, it’s been getting better. But there are still people out there who think of Orthodox as nothing more that heretic schismatics who refuse to submit to the Pope. The gestures of Pope Francis hopefully would change that.

 

[Steveabrous]

Then why did the Popes seek affirmation from the Emperor to legitimize their claim, especially during the controversies when there were more than one claimant to the Papal Throne?

There has never been a case were a sitting Pope was “Fired” by the emperor and replaced with another. I have been studying Catholicism and Church history (on my own not through a school) for about 10 years now and I’ve never heard anything like this.

There are a lot of false claims against the church. I suspect this is one.

You are making the charge. The burden of proof is with you. If you have credible proof ( not orthodox, or anti-catholic material) Then by all means share.

There are a lot of credible historical evidence. Unless you are one of those who sees something against your beliefs and automatically treat it as dubious on the basis that it is against your belief, and** not on the basis that the facts were not presented properly**.

Might I point out you have not presented any facts only a claim it is up to you to prove your claim.

It is not up to me to defend against this claim.

As far as I’m concerned it is considered false till proven otherwise.

 

[ConstantineTG]

not orthodox

So credible proof for you is only things that your side says? How credible

So you’re telling me you will only accept something that you already agree with.

 

[Monergistic]

So credible proof for you is only things that your side says? How credible

So you’re telling me you will only accept something that you already agree with.

But is there really anything wrong with being habitually self-referential? Remember, no using sources that are Orthodox or anti-Catholic…which I assume is code for any and all Protestants.

Oh wait. The pope. That’s where I’ve heard this self-referential word. But I don’t know what to link to, since the top Google results lead to Catholicvote, the National Catholic Reporter, the Catholic Herald, Ludgercatholic, Catholicnews, Catholicculture…and even though they’re all technically Catholic sources, I don’t know which ones are CAF approved. I know for sure NCR is rejected out of hand, but unless I see something from This Rock, I don’t really know if there’s anything that you good people are willing to read. For example, about the various self-referential comments.

I think I just started two new threads.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But is there really anything wrong with being habitually self-referential? Remember, no using sources that are Orthodox or anti-Catholic…which I assume is code for any and all Protestants.

You know the saying, history is written by the victor. Will the Catholic Church ever write something that is non-conformist to what the Catholic Church is? Of course not! Look at Catholic history, its always roses and rainbows with regards to the Pope. The Pope can do no wrong. How is that fair? How is that even realistic? Heck, the Pope of Rome even demanded that the Honorius be painted in a lighter sense before he would agree to the anathema against him. So now they say that he didn’t do anything wrong, he just didn’t do anything to prevent the heresy that was happening. But that is not true. He wrote a letter affirming the heretic belief. And letter’s from bishops, especially a Patriarch like the Pope aren’t taken lightly especially if it is a matter of faith.

 

[Steveabrous]

So credible proof for you is only things that your side says? How credible

So you’re telling me you will only accept something that you already agree with.

Would you accept a claim against Orthodoxy say “The bishop of Constantinople is not the Ecumenical Patriarch (not that that is a claim)” and to prove it i gave you Catholic sources?

Of course not. Nor would I expect you to.

Come on be reasonable.

Credible would be scholarly approved sources like Britanica, world book, etc.

 

[Steveabrous]

But is there really anything wrong with being habitually self-referential? Remember, no using sources that are Orthodox or anti-Catholic…which I assume is code for any and all Protestants.

Oh wait. The pope. That’s where I’ve heard this self-referential word. But I don’t know what to link to, since the top Google results lead to Catholicvote, the National Catholic Reporter, the Catholic Herald, Ludgercatholic, Catholicnews, Catholicculture…and even though they’re all technically Catholic sources, I don’t know which ones are CAF approved. I know for sure NCR is rejected out of hand, but unless I see something from This Rock, I don’t really know if there’s anything that you good people are willing to read. For example, about the various self-referential comments.

I think I just started two new threads.

It’s real simple guys. You wouldn’t accept a Catholic source that disparaged your religion or beliefs. Yet you make smart comments because I insist on non anti-catholic sources?

Credible sources are not that hard to find. Britanica, world book, etc.

Oh, and here’ a hint: If you can’t find the claim in these types of sources and can only find it a website titles “The truth about Catholicism” Then the claim is B*ll SH&T

 

[tomarin]

They have no reason to. Middle East Christians aren’t part of the maligned groups the PC crowd feels they need to protect. They are not blacks or Jews or gays. Seriously, if one person is killed in the Middle East because they are gay, that is all you will see on the news and the entire US military is knocking on the door of whatever country that happened in. But because they are middle east Christians, bah, who cares about them, right? SMH

One word: leadership.

 

[Steveabrous]

or anti-Catholic…which I assume is code for any and all Protestants.

.

I don’t need to use code. If I meant Protestant I would have said Protestant. Not all anti-catholic sources are Protestant. However most are. But you already know that, as is apparent in your comment.

But no, I would not accept a claim against the church when the source is Protestant.

Obviously.

You wouldn’t accept a claim against Protestantism if the only source was Catholic.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There has never been a case were a sitting Pope was “Fired” by the emperor and replaced with another.

Pope Silverius was one such case, who was deposed by Justinian’s general in Italy, Belisarius, due in part to the machinations of Vigilius (it is suspected that Silverius was framed for treason), who would then go on to succeed the unfortunate Silverius as pope. Despite the canonical irregularity of Vigilius’ ascent to power, he is nonetheless regarded as a legitimate bishop of Rome.

 

[Reuben_J]

Pope Silverius was one such case, who was deposed by Justinian’s general in Italy, Belisarius, due in part to the machinations of Vigilius (it is suspected that Silverius was framed for treason), who would then go on to succeed the unfortunate Silverius as pope. Despite the canonical irregularity of Vigilius’ ascent to power, he is nonetheless regarded as a legitimate bishop of Rome.

This is true and happened in some of the dark history of the Church. He was made Pope under duress due to the influence of the King of Goths who besieged Rome at that time.

Vagilus also was made Pope to succeed him. However the event the led to his appointment is far more complicated. He was nevertheless only affirmed as Pope after the death of his predecessor.

It is interesting to note that he was installed by Belisarius, a Byzantine general who occupied Rome, who deposed his predecessor, Pope Silverius. History would say that Vigilus was a Byzantine Pope. Supported by the Empress who wanted revenge for Monophysite Patriarch Anthimus I of Constantinople who was deposed earlier by Pope Agapetus. As a Pope, Vigilus made a turnaround and did not support Monophysitism which was a heresy.

Another thing to note here is that the Byzantine Emperor wanted him to agree to condemn the Three Chapters. He refused and was imprisoned. This has been used to some extent to support the idea of the absence of Pope authority. Catholics OTOH would use this to support Pope’s authority otherwise why would the Emperor so eager for the Pope to approve it.

 

[Steveabrous]

Pope Silverius was one such case, who was deposed by Justinian’s general in Italy, Belisarius, due in part to the machinations of Vigilius (it is suspected that Silverius was framed for treason), who would then go on to succeed the unfortunate Silverius as pope. Despite the canonical irregularity of Vigilius’ ascent to power, he is nonetheless regarded as a legitimate bishop of Rome.

Being removed by force is not the same thing as the emporer having authority to fire you and replace you.

And as stated his predesessor was not accepted until his death as Pope so in reality Silverius was still Pope regardless of what Justinian said.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Being removed by force is not the same thing as the emporer having authority to fire you and replace you.

And as stated his predesessor was not accepted until his death as Pope so in reality Silverius was still Pope regardless of what Justinian said.

Had the Roman Clergy not recognized the legitimacy of Pope Silverius’ deposition, then that would have meant that Pope Vigilius’ original election and ordination were invalid, and that he was an anti-pope at best, and a layman at worst. But we have no record of Vigilius ever being reelected or reordained in order to remove these possible defects or to dispel any questions concerning his legitimacy. That the Roman Clergy accepted his canonically irregular ordination unconditionally after the death of his only possible rival (pope Silverius) means that the clergy of Rome accepted as legitimately de jure what already was de facto (i.e., they accepted that the deposition of Silverius and appointment of Vigilius by the civil authorities was legal).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Another thing to note here is that the Byzantine Emperor wanted him to agree to condemn the Three Chapters. He refused and was imprisoned. This has been used to some extent to support the idea of the absence of Pope authority. Catholics OTOH would use this to support Pope’s authority otherwise why would the Emperor so eager for the Pope to approve it.

It is a little more complicated than that. Vigilius wavered on the question of the Three Chapters, which eventually gave the Fifth Ecumenical Council cause to strike him from the diptychs. He was then banished, and six months or so after he was banished, he submitted a letter in which he assented to the will of the council, and agreed to the condemnation of the Three Chapters.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is a little more complicated than that. Vigilius wavered on the question of the Three Chapters, which eventually gave the Fifth Ecumenical Council cause to strike him from the diptychs. He was then banished, and six months or so after he was banished, he submitted a letter in which he assented to the will of the council, and agreed to the condemnation of the Three Chapters.

That’s right. It’s not that he did not agree with the content of the Three Chapter but the manner it came about and supposed to do - called by the emperor and to anathemize. I thought here we see an emperor encroached into the Church’s authority and Vigilus notwithsranding that he was the secular’s choice but once as Pope tried to resist them. He was tortured and imprisoned for eigth years for taking that stance. That he eventually approved the condemnation of the Three Chapters is food for thought for us looking back at this history. He was nevertheless released from prison and died a shortwhile later on his journey back to Rome.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s right. It’s not that he did not agree with the content of the Three Chapter but the manner it came about and supposed to do - called by the emperor and to anathemize. I thought here we see an emperor encroached into the Church’s authority and Vigilus notwithsranding that he was the secular’s choice but once as Pope tried to resist them. He was tortured and imprisoned for eigth years for taking that stance. That he eventually approved the condemnation of the Three Chapters is food for thought for us looking back at this history. He was nevertheless released from prison and died a shortwhile later on his journey back to Rome.

The Emperor isn’t really supposed to depose anyone, any bishop, not just the Pope. But at some point his temporal power was respected to some degree. The Byzantine Empire had a synergy between Church and State which didn’t really work all the time, but the people of the time tried to get it to work. But just because its not supposed to happen, it doesn’t mean it didn’t. At some point there was this idea that the Emperor was the NT King David and the Church is the NT Temple and the Byzantine Empire was the NT Kingdom of Israel. Even with the Kingdom of Israel you’d see that not every King was holy. Same with the Byzantine Empire.

But that was the reality we dealt with. And even when the Emperor was supposed to be deposing bishops (which the Pope is one), he still did. And the other bishops went along with it. And there is this validation that the Emperor and Bishop would seek from one another. An Emperor would approve of the appointment of a Bishop, and a Bishop would crown the Emperor as a sign of legitimacy of his reign.

 

[Steveabrous]

Had the Roman Clergy not recognized the legitimacy of Pope Silverius’ deposition, then that would have meant that Pope Vigilius’ original election and ordination were invalid, and that he was an anti-pope at best, and a layman at worst. But we have no record of Vigilius ever being reelected or reordained in order to remove these possible defects or to dispel any questions concerning his legitimacy. That the Roman Clergy accepted his canonically irregular ordination unconditionally after the death of his only possible rival (pope Silverius) means that the clergy of Rome accepted as legitimately de jure what already was de facto (i.e., they accepted that the deposition of Silverius and appointment of Vigilius by the civil authorities was legal).

Since the clergy refused to recognize Vigilius as pope until Silverus’ death that means they didn’t recognize his deposition, otherwise Vigilius would have been recognized immediately and Silverus would have been a living ex-pope not by his own will. Then you would have a case of a sitting Pope being “fired” by an Emporer and replaced with another and the church accepting it. (which is the charge the Orthodox makes)

That didn’t happen.

The fact that after Silverius’ death Vigilius was accepted as a legitimate Pope has no baring on the matter. After the death of Silverus someone had to succeed him. We don’t care the manor the holy spirit reveals who he wants as Pope. And, as has been pointed out several times already, once Pope Vigilius miraculously changed his mind and did not do what the Emporer wanted him to. Further proof that the Holy spirit protects the Papacy from falling into doctrinal error.

this is a case of close, but o cigar.

And furthermore. I never said the Emperors of Rome never meddled in the selection of the Pope, just that the Emperor never “fired” one and put up another. They tried yes. Unfortunately that is something in both our histories.

After the Ottoman empire conquered the Byzantine Empire the Sultans (who weren’t even Christian) hand picked many of the Orthodox Patriarchs. That doesn’t mean they were illegitimate. God uses those situations to got who he wants in those positions