Eastern Catholic and Orthodoxy

[jbm0117]

I am a eastern Catholic. I am learning about church history.
I am learning how the Orthodox joined the Catholic church for largely political reason, as invading armies, Etc. I am looking for evidence that the Catholic Chuch is the true church as opposed to the Orthodox claims. As I am asked, “Why not just be Orthodox?”

Thanks,

John

 

[Ghosty]

I am a eastern Catholic. I am learning about church history.
I am learning how the Orthodox joined the Catholic church for largely political reason, as invading armies, Etc. I am looking for evidence that the Catholic Chuch is the true church as opposed to the Orthodox claims. As I am asked, “Why not just be Orthodox?”

Thanks,

John

Well, it depends on which Orthodox you’re alking about. Most Eastern Catholic Churches that I’m aware of did not join out of political pressure. The Melkite Church, for example, was protected by the Ottoman Turks until it joined the Catholic Communion, at which time it became heavily persecuted (yet remained Catholic). It joined the Catholic Communion because the Synod and the Patriarch (so far as I know, it’s the only example of an Eastern Orthodox Synod and Patriarch doing so) believed in it, and they were willing to suffer for it.

The Assyrian Churches don’t seem to have joined based on political pressure, nor did the various Indian (Assyrian and Syriac) Churches. The only Church I can think of off hand that has a potentially politically motivated reason was the Ukrainian Church and its off-shoot the Byzantine Catholic Church, but the Ukrainian Catholic Church was suppressed by the Soviets and the Russian Orthodox and in recent decades spontaneously “re-appeared” when it became legal again, despite having been absorbed by the Russian Orthodox Church for most of the last century. Whatever its original reason for joining, it certainly can’t be said to be for political benefit now.

As for “why not just be Orthodox”, if you believe that Rome is invested with a unique Petrine Ministry, and that the Pope has a role that is the focal point for Unity, then the question is easy to answer.

Peace and God bless!

 

[byzgirl]

Maybe these comments, from a Catholic apologist, will help:

“I would say that most Orthodox see themselves as the true church in as much as all Apostolic churches are authentic and therefore hold authority to teach, preach and admonish. Each Patriarch is almost like a mini pope, holding virtually total authority over his respective church. He is not isolated however, the universal church shares a role in forming doctrine, namely the creeds; but jurisdictional matters are seldom handled beyond the individual Patriarch.
I have not met an Orthodox who does not hold the Catholic Church to be apostolic and therefore authentic. They do consider us flawed on several issues, but valid just the same. It is our apostolicity that can become a fertile ground for discussion.
It is most important to bring into a discussion with regards to Peter’s unique authority. They may counter you and point to Mt 18, where Jesus gives all the Apostles the power to bind and loose, but drawing the distinction between the two events is critical. In Mt 16, Peter alone is given the keys, a symbol drawn directly from Isaiah 22, where Shebna was removed as Master of the Palace and the keys were given to Elikiah, and to his descendants for all posterity. Compare the language of the two instances and you will see how Jesus modeled his own handing on of the keys after this very incident.
Understanding the context of Isaiah is important to dicipher Mt 16. Shebna was virtually the Prime Minister of King David’s cabinet. He had the authority of the king to act in his name, and was uncontestable. Only the king himself could override him. In Jesus kingdom, Peter becomes the new master of the Palace, or prime minister, acting in place of the king (Jesus) in all matters regarding authority. While Jesus did give all the apostles his authority to bind and loose, only Peter is given the distinctive symbol of the keys, that symbol which represents Christ’s own authority, trumping all others. His primacy is therefore not only “a first place” among the apostles, but of a unique character that is set above. It is not merely a token privilege but a practical one, enabling Peter to settle disputes among the bretheren should problems arise, or to settle matters regarding doctrine and practice. Keys = authority, it’s that simple. The Orthodox know very well that Apostolicity means handing down authority, not something that dies with the person. Peter’s office continues, just as Elikiah’s did, to all the “little jugs, bowls and dishes.”
the Catholic Church claims to hold the seat of Peter, the Papacy, and therefore the charism of primacy and supremacy. Our debate with the Orthodox is chiefly over this point; they concede primacy, but not supremacy, to Peter’s seat.
We hold that the Papacy is the critical seat of unity for the Church that Christ built (he only built one) and therefore the Orthodox are the scismatics. The day we work out this issue we will likely restore the unity that Christ desired for His Church. Our present Pope has made it a priority for his papacy, to unify the “lungs” of the Body of Christ.”

Also, see this timeline for a better historic background:

raeshomepage.bravehost.com/orthodox.html
raeshomepage.bravehost.com/orthodox2.html

Also see:
Why I’m not Eastern Orthodox (by Jimmy Akin)
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

A Response to Orthodox Critiques of Catholic Apostolicity
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

and

raeshomepage.bravehost.com/meaning.html
What Does Catholic Mean?

 

[Nicholas82]

Maybe these comments, from a Catholic apologist, will help:

“I would say that most Orthodox see themselves as the true church in as much as all Apostolic churches are authentic and therefore hold authority to teach, preach and admonish. Each Patriarch is almost like a mini pope, holding virtually total authority over his respective church. He is not isolated however, the universal church shares a role in forming doctrine, namely the creeds; but jurisdictional matters are seldom handled beyond the individual Patriarch.
I have not met an Orthodox who does not hold the Catholic Church to be apostolic and therefore authentic. They do consider us flawed on several issues, but valid just the same. It is our apostolicity that can become a fertile ground for discussion.
It is most important to bring into a discussion with regards to Peter’s unique authority. They may counter you and point to Mt 18, where Jesus gives all the Apostles the power to bind and loose, but drawing the distinction between the two events is critical. In Mt 16, Peter alone is given the keys, a symbol drawn directly from Isaiah 22, where Shebna was removed as Master of the Palace and the keys were given to Elikiah, and to his descendants for all posterity. Compare the language of the two instances and you will see how Jesus modeled his own handing on of the keys after this very incident.
Understanding the context of Isaiah is important to dicipher Mt 16. Shebna was virtually the Prime Minister of King David’s cabinet. He had the authority of the king to act in his name, and was uncontestable. Only the king himself could override him. In Jesus kingdom, Peter becomes the new master of the Palace, or prime minister, acting in place of the king (Jesus) in all matters regarding authority. While Jesus did give all the apostles his authority to bind and loose, only Peter is given the distinctive symbol of the keys, that symbol which represents Christ’s own authority, trumping all others. His primacy is therefore not only “a first place” among the apostles, but of a unique character that is set above. It is not merely a token privilege but a practical one, enabling Peter to settle disputes among the bretheren should problems arise, or to settle matters regarding doctrine and practice. Keys = authority, it’s that simple. The Orthodox know very well that Apostolicity means handing down authority, not something that dies with the person. Peter’s office continues, just as Elikiah’s did, to all the “little jugs, bowls and dishes.”
the Catholic Church claims to hold the seat of Peter, the Papacy, and therefore the charism of primacy and supremacy. Our debate with the Orthodox is chiefly over this point; they concede primacy, but not supremacy, to Peter’s seat.
We hold that the Papacy is the critical seat of unity for the Church that Christ built (he only built one) and therefore the Orthodox are the scismatics. The day we work out this issue we will likely restore the unity that Christ desired for His Church. Our present Pope has made it a priority for his papacy, to unify the “lungs” of the Body of Christ.”

Also, see this timeline for a better historic background:

raeshomepage.bravehost.com/orthodox.html
raeshomepage.bravehost.com/orthodox2.html

Also see:
Why I’m not Eastern Orthodox (by Jimmy Akin)
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

A Response to Orthodox Critiques of Catholic Apostolicity
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

and

raeshomepage.bravehost.com/meaning.html
What Does Catholic Mean?

Very helpful. If that sort of misinfored poorly-written drivel is what you put stock in then so be it.

"“I would say that most Orthodox see themselves as the true church in as much as all Apostolic churches are authentic and therefore hold authority to teach, preach and admonish. Each Patriarch is almost like a mini pope, holding virtually total authority over his respective church.”

We believe the Orthodox Church to be the true Church- not “in as much as” anything, simply ‘in as much as’ we believe exactly that.

Each Patriarch is like a mini-Pope? You’re an Eastern Catholic? You’re sure of that, right??

 

[byzgirl]

Yes, I’m a byzantine Catholic and my brother happens to be a Byzantine Catholic priest.

The Orthodox are very reluctant to give up the authority they have, and submit to the authority of Peter’s chair (the Papacy). It’s not easy to be your ‘own boss’ and then have to pledge obedience to the Pope of Rome. That is what the apologist meant to say (much like Protestants like having their own, individual authority on what the Bible says and what they believe or don’t–which can be rightly described as being their ‘own Popes’–having and maintaining their own authority). Perhaps you, personally, feel that he comes across as being a bit blunt, but, in all honesty, it’s not off track. That is the issue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church–the Papacy and their reluctance to submit to that authority (which Christ bestowed, specifically, upon Peter and his successors).

Did you read James Akins’ (former Evangelical) reasons that he chose the Catholic Church (which was actually a harder road) than to become a member of the Orthodox Church?

And I think Dave Armstrong (another former Evangelical who chose Catholicism over the Orthodox Church) gives some wonderful information in his article, “A Response to Orthodox Critiques of Catholic Apostolicity”. Perhaps that would be less abrasive.

As an Eastern rite Catholic, I understand myself to be Catholic, and *not *Orthodox. The Orthodox Church is in schism, and I pray and hope for their return to unity.

Besides, the apologist (from ask-a-Catholic) was speaking of the Orthodox Church, *not *Eastern rite Catholics (so why be so defensive?).

 

[Nicholas82]

Yes, I’m a byzantine Catholic and my brother happens to be a Byzantine Catholic priest.

The Orthodox are very reluctant to give up the authority they have, and submit to the authority of Peter’s chair (the Papacy). It’s not easy to be your ‘own boss’ and then have to pledge obedience to the Pope of Rome. That is what the apologist meant to say (much like Protestants like having their own, individual authority on what the Bible says and what they believe or don’t–which can be rightly described as being their ‘own Popes’–having and maintaining their own authority). Perhaps you, personally, feel that he comes across as being a bit blunt, but, in all honesty, it’s not off track. That is the issue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church–the Papacy and their reluctance to submit to that authority (which Christ bestowed, specifically, upon Peter and his successors).

Did you read James Akins’ (former Evangelical) reasons that he chose the Catholic Church (which was actually a harder road) than to become a member of the Orthodox Church?

And I think Dave Armstrong (another former Evangelical who chose Catholicism over the Orthodox Church) gives some wonderful information in his article, “A Response to Orthodox Critiques of Catholic Apostolicity”. Perhaps that would be less abrasive.

As an Eastern rite Catholic, I understand myself to be Catholic, and *not *Orthodox. The Orthodox Church is in schism, and I pray and hope for their return to unity.

Besides, the apologist (from ask-a-Catholic) was speaking of the Orthodox Church, *not *Eastern rite Catholics (so why be so defensive?).

I don’t find this apologist’s attempt to mockingly compare the role of a Patriarch to being a ‘little pope of his own’ to be too blunt- I find it to be totally ignorant, incorrect, and a ridiculous analogy. I disagree with you and find this analogy to be completely “off-track”. Last I knew Eastern Catholics had their own Patriarchs as well.

As it were I’m not terribly suprised when an evangelical like Dave Armstrong or any other protestant chooses the Roman Catholic Church over the Orthodox Church. Most protestants if even aware of the Orthodox Church at all know very little about it except in passing. I as well as many Orthodox would really consider Catholics and protestants two sides of the same coin anyway. Anyway, don’t worry, I for one will never accuse you of being Orthodox…

 

[byzgirl]

I don’t find this apologist’s attempt to mockingly compare the role of a Patriarch to being a ‘little pope of his own’ to be too blunt- I find it to be totally ignorant, incorrect, and a ridiculous analogy. I disagree with you and find this analogy to be completely “off-track”. Last I knew Eastern Catholics had their own Patriarchs as well.

As it were I’m not terribly suprised when an evangelical like Dave Armstrong or any other protestant chooses the Roman Catholic Church over the Orthodox Church. Most protestants if even aware of the Orthodox Church at all know very little about it except in passing. I as well as many Orthodox would really consider Catholics and protestants two sides of the same coin anyway. Anyway, don’t worry, I for one will never accuse you of being Orthodox…

You seem to have a lot of hostility, and I think that a shame. To deny Latin Rite Catholics as being orthodox (small o) Catholics, is false. No one ‘knows’ the Orthodox Church well enough to make comments or attempt apologetics? Or is it the fact that they DO KNOW about it, and decided to go with the Catholic Church (and the Papacy) despite it? The Catholic apologists that you mentioned (“mockingly”–to borrow your term–calling them Protestants) are making an effort to bring unity to the Body of Christ, afterall. Dave Armstrong and James Akin are both intelligent enough to debate those (like yourself) who are clearly anti-Rome. Whether or not you like it, is beside the point.

Most ‘orthodox’ Eastern Rite Catholics understand that **full communion **with the Church of Christ is acceptance and obedience to the Roman See (the Papacy).

raeshomepage.bravehost.com/easternandwestern.html

 

[byzgirl]

In 382 A.D., a Council of Rome in the pontificate of Pope Damasus wrote as follows:

“…Though all the Catholic churches diffused throughout the world are but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the Primacy by the voice of Our Lord and Savior in the Gospel: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this Rock…shall be loosed in heaven.’ …The first See of the Apostle Peter is therefore the Roman Church, ‘not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.’ But the second See was consecrated in Alexandria, in the name of blessed Peter, by his disciple Mark the evangelist… And the third See of the most blessed Peter is at Antioch…”

 

[byzgirl]

In the Catholic view, the Church was institutionally united (allowing for some temporary schisms) up to 1054, under the supreme ecclesiological jurisdiction of the papacy (a complex issue which cannot be explored within the purview of this article).
In the ecumenical Orthodox perspective, the Church of the first millennium is also regarded as one and united, but under a system of conciliarism, in which all bishops - including the pope- were ultimately equal in authority. The pope was and is granted a primacy of honor (“first among equals”), but not of universal jurisdiction, or headship. The Catholic Church is accepted as part of the universal Church today in this framework, notwithstanding (according to them) aberrations and various heretical tenets (e.g., the Filioque, which has to do with the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, as expressed in the Nicene Creed).

For the unecumenical Orthodox, on the other hand, the Catholic Church ceased to be part of the universal Church after 1054, and has lost - according to the most severe faction - apostolic succession and valid sacraments, as evidenced by the above quotes.

The Necessity of the Roman See for Doctrinal Orthodoxy

The Catholic response to the latter position is a demonstration that the Roman See and the papacy - irregardless of their ultimate status vis-a-vis the government of the Universal Church (it doesn’t affect the validity of the argument) - were absolutely necessary for the purpose of upholding Christian orthodoxy (literally, correct doctrine), and preserving apostolic Tradition. A view that the East was always “primary” and orthodox, was the apostolic “mainline” (over against Roman and Western orthodoxy), and never forsook the Christian Tradition, is incoherent and self-defeating. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox ecumenical outlooks entail this logical conundrum. Only the “anti-Catholic” Orthodox view does, based on the following historical facts:

Schisms Prior to 1054

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

The Arian schisms (343-98);
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415);
The Acacian schism (484-519);
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681);
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43).
This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.
Final Court of Appeal

The Roman See, with its bishop, the pope, was the supreme arbiter of orthodoxy in the Church universal in the early centuries. There is abundant historical evidence for this, but suffice it to say that even many of the East’s most revered Church Fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: St. Athanasius (339 to 342), St. Basil the Great (371), St. John Chrysostom (404), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (430), and St. Flavian of Constantinople (449).The East all too frequently treated its greatest figures much like the ancient Jews did their prophets, often expelling and exiling them, while Rome welcomed them unambiguously, and restored them to office by the authority of papal or conciliar decree.

Many of these venerable saints (particularly St. John Chysostom), and other Eastern saints such as (most notably) St. Ephraim, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Theodore of Studios, also explicitly affirmed papal supremacy. The popes functioned as the “supreme court” of the Church, and they presided over (personally or through papal legates) and ratified the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. One may argue that this was mere custom or a particularly “pragmatic,” “governmental” aspect of the primacy of honor, but whatever view one takes, the historical facts of the papacy as “final court of appeal” are undeniable.

Rome and the New Testament Canon

Moreover, the Church of Rome was central in the development of the New Testament Canon, as Protestant scholar Adolf Harnack notes:

The New Testament canon . . . is primarily traceable to the Church of Rome. It has now been proved that the whole series of New Testament books in their canonical and universally accepted versions were derived from Rome. Finally, new evidence of the greatest value indicates that from the third century the versions of the West, i.e. the Roman texts of the New Testament, entered into the texts of the Oriental biblical manuscripts. These data clearly prove that the Eastern Churches corrected their own versions by comparison with the New Testament received from Rome in those days. It was with special reference to Rome that an authentic list of Bishops extending back to the Apostles was prepared.
(History of Dogma (1899), German ed., vol. 1, p.443, cited in Asmussen, Hans, et al, The Unfinished Reformation, tr. Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, IN: Fides Publishers Assoc., 1961, pp. 87-88.)

 

[byzgirl]

An Overview of Early Eastern and Western Dealings with Various Heresies

Marcionism
rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

Montanism
was an apocalyptic sect which denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (199-217).

Docetism
was the belief that Jesus Christ was not a real man, but only appeared to be so. The origins of Docetism derive from Hellenistic, Gnostic, and oriental notions that matter is essentially evil, which came out of Alexandria. Later christological heresies emanating from this school (such as Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, and Monophysitism) were influenced by Docetism.

Modalism
(also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl… 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

Novatianism
was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope”. His views were approved at Antioch.

Donatism
held that sacraments administered by unworthy priests were invalid, and practiced re-baptism. The sect flourished in Africa, around Carthage. It began in 311 and was condemned by Pope Miltiades (311-14), who also came from Africa, in 313.

Arianism
held that Jesus was created by the Father. In trinitarian Christianity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equal to, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father. Arius (c.256-336), the heresiarch, was based in Alexandria and died in Constantinople. In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism, whereas in a Council at Rome in the same year, under Pope Julius I, the trinitarian St. Athanasius was vindicated by over 50 Italian bishops. The western-dominated Council of Sardica (Sofia) in 343 again upheld Athanasius’ orthodoxy, whereas the eastern Council of Sirmium in 351 espoused Arianism, which in turn was rejected by the western Councils of Arles (353) and Milan (355).

Pelagianism
is the heretical doctrine that man can make steps toward salvation by his own efforts, without Divine Grace. Pelagius cleared himself at a Synod at Jerusalem around 416, but was condemned at Carthage and Milevis in 416 and excommunicated by Pope Innocent I in the same year. Pope Zosimus reaffirmed this judgment in 418, as did the ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.

Nestorianism
contends that there are two persons in Christ (Divine and human) and denies that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate. Orthodox, Catholic Christianity holds to one Divine Person - a God-man. Nestorius ( d.c.451) studied at a monastery at Antioch and became Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, having been condemned by Pope Celestine I in the Council at Rome in 430 (after both sides of the controversy appealed to Rome). The ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 repeated the Roman condemnation, after which Eastern bishops predominantly from Syria, Persia and Assyria withdrew from the Catholic Church.

Monophysitism
was a heresy which held that Christ had one Divine Nature, as opposed to the orthodox and Catholic belief in two Natures (Divine and human). The Henoticon, a semi-Monophysite document was widely acknowledged in the East, but never at Rome. The co-writers of the Henoticon are thought to be Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople (471-89), and Peter Mongo, Patriarch of Alexandria (477-90). Both were Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Monophysitism was an advanced type of Alexandrian theology. Pope Leo the Great dominated the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, which repudiated Monophysitism.

Monothelitism
is the heretical belief that Christ had one will (Divine), whereas in orthodox, Catholic Christian dogma, Christ has both Divine and human wills. Sergius (d.638), Patriarch of Constantinople from 610 to 638, was the most influential exponent of Monotheletism. The Ecthesis, a Monothelite statement issued by Emperor Heraclius, was accepted by Councils at Constantinople in 638 and 639, but was finally rejected at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680, which confirmed the decisions of Pope Agatho and the Synod at Rome in 679.

The Iconoclastic Controversy,
a great upheaval of the 8th and 9th centuries, was spurred on notably by Monophysitism and influenced by Islam. This heresy held that images in worship were idolatrous and evil. It was initiated by Eastern Emperors Leo II (717-41), who deposed Germanus (c.634-c.733), Patriarch of Constantinople (715-30) - who appealed to Pope Gregory III. Gregory held two Synods at Rome condemning Leo’s supporters in 731. In 784 Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, initiated negotiations with Pope Hadrian I. The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787 condemned the Iconoclasts. The Iconoclast Controversy was a major contributor towards the enduring schism between East and West.

 

[Pravoslavac]

That is the issue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church–the Papacy and their reluctance to submit to that authority (which Christ bestowed, specifically, upon Peter and his successors). …The Orthodox Church is in schism, and I pray and hope for their return to unity.

Besides, the apologist (from ask-a-Catholic) was speaking of the Orthodox Church, *not *Eastern rite Catholics (so why be so defensive?).

REALLY? This goes around and around quite often. Why is it that it’s constued that Peter’s Chair is in Rome? Because he founded Rome? He founded the Patriarchate of Antioch first?

Is it because he died in Rome? Well Jesus died in Jerusalem so why wouldn’t the Patriarchate there be the head of the church because that was the very first church ever founded.

As for the Orthodox church in schism…boy lots of heavy comments from you. The EO church is not in schism. We see the RCC in schism. However the RCC see us not in schism but as a separated church, valid with all the sacred sacraments and most importantly Apostolic Succession, unlike the various ecclesial communities that can not trace back their lineage to the apostles.

Please read up on the EO church before stipulating such comments.

 

[Pravoslavac]

In 382 A.D., a Council of Rome in the pontificate of Pope Damasus wrote as follows:

“…Though all the Catholic churches diffused throughout the world are but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the Primacy by the voice of Our Lord and Savior in the Gospel: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this Rock…shall be loosed in heaven.’ …The first See of the Apostle Peter is therefore the Roman Church, ‘not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.’ But the second See was consecrated in Alexandria, in the name of blessed Peter, by his disciple Mark the evangelist… And the third See of the most blessed Peter is at Antioch…”

Where is this in the bible??? Oh that’s right, this was written by the Pope…

Regarding the “Rock” please look into the Greek text regarding this quote and the term kepha.

Good luck.

 

[Pravoslavac]

.

Most ‘orthodox’ Eastern Rite Catholics understand that **full communion **with the Church of Christ is acceptance and obedience to the Roman See (the Papacy).

raeshomepage.bravehost.com/easternandwestern.html

As you know the Eastern Rite Byzantines you’re referring to were reunited with Rome either due to political influences, or didn’t know of the schism that occured between the EO and the RCC. Remember they didn’t have phone, internet or email or mail for that matter.

 

[byzgirl]

As you know the Eastern Rite Byzantines you’re referring to were reunited with Rome either due to political influences, or didn’t know of the schism that occured between the EO and the RCC. Remember they didn’t have phone, internet or email or mail for that matter.

I’d give them more credit. What ‘political influences’ do you refer to exacatly, and how does that equate with the utter ignorance and confusion–ie they were ‘fooled into it’ by their own misunderstanding) for the reason for their coming to accept the Papacy?

By the way, they have phones, internet, e-mail and snail mail today…yet they still exist in the bosom of the Catholic Church, in full communion with the Pope of Rome. You’d think, by now, they’d have figured it out!

raeshomepage.bravehost.com/orthodox.html

 

[Pravoslavac]

Well, they have phones, internet, and e-mail today…but for the sake of your theorized history, let’s ask why Byzantine Rite Catholics (of the Catholic Church, in full communion with the Pope of Rome), choose to stay in union? Where in the history of the Byzantine Rite do you find proof that ‘political influences’ (equating, as you insinuate, to total ignorance and confusion–ie they were ‘fooled into it’ by their own misunderstanding) was the reason for their coming to accept the Papacy? And what keeps them Catholic (big C) now?

Yes there is this wonderful communication now…but wasn’t there a council of some sort? Basel or Ferrara-Florence? Hmm…I don’t have my history book in front of me.

 

[Nicholas82]

You seem to have a lot of hostility, and I think that a shame. To deny Latin Rite Catholics as being orthodox (small o) Catholics, is false. No one ‘knows’ the Orthodox Church well enough to make comments or attempt apologetics? Or is it the fact that they DO KNOW about it, and decided to go with the Catholic Church (and the Papacy) despite it? The Catholic apologists that you mentioned (“mockingly”–to borrow your term–calling them Protestants) are making an effort to bring unity to the Body of Christ, afterall. Dave Armstrong and James Akin are both intelligent enough to debate those (like yourself) who are clearly anti-Rome. Whether or not you like it, is beside the point.

Most ‘orthodox’ Eastern Rite Catholics understand that **full communion **with the Church of Christ is acceptance and obedience to the Roman See (the Papacy).

raeshomepage.bravehost.com/easternandwestern.html

I’m not calling them protestants; that really isn’t what I mean by “two sides of the same coin”. I am however stating that I believe whoever you quoted made poor analogies and the quote lacked any real substance. That’s just my opinion.

I think if you dig a bit deeper you’ll find that things are not so black and white as you wish to present them. There are those Eastern Catholics who genuinely believe themselves to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. From your posts I assume you believe that mindset to be misguided?

I’m certainly not “anti-Rome”, I just have a differing opinion from yours. As a Catholic, does your non-acceptance of Anglican orders make you “anti-Anglican”? My whole faily is Roman Catholic anyway… I’m not anti-Roman, just pro-Orthodox

 

[Ghosty]

As you know the Eastern Rite Byzantines you’re referring to were reunited with Rome either due to political influences, or didn’t know of the schism that occured between the EO and the RCC. Remember they didn’t have phone, internet or email or mail for that matter.

Actually, some of our Churches reunited without any political influences, and knew full well that there was a Schism. Case in point: the Antiochian Church, A.K.A. the Melkite Catholic Church.

Reunited of its own accord, Synod and Patriarch, without regard of the political safety of the move (the Church became a non-protected entity under Ottoman rule after this decision). Some of our Churches made the decision quite openly, and without pressure (aside from that put on them by the Eastern Orthodox/Muslim rulers to not reunite), thank you.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Pravoslavac]

Actually, some of our Churches reunited without any political influences, and knew full well that there was a Schism. Case in point: the Antiochian Church, A.K.A. the Melkite Catholic Church.

Reunited of its own accord, Synod and Patriarch, without regard of the political safety of the move (the Church became a non-protected entity under Ottoman rule after this decision). Some of our Churches made the decision quite openly, and without pressure (aside from that put on them by the Eastern Orthodox/Muslim rulers to not reunite), thank you.

Peace and God bless!

Please let BYZGIRL know this. Yes there were some Byzantines that openly entered into communion with Rome, there were some that did it for political reasons and then there were some that didn’t know that the schism occured.

Thank you

 

[byzgirl]

Yes there is this wonderful communication now…but wasn’t there a council of some sort? Basel or Ferrara-Florence? Hmm…I don’t have my history book in front of me.

Obviously. I think you may like your own anyhow

 

[Pravoslavac]

Obviously. I think you may like your own anyhow

Please read Ghostly above. So we must obviously share books???