Eastern Orthodoxy

[DylanO]

I haven’t really studied apologetics in the area of Eastern Orthodoxy and their claims against Catholicism. Someone , who is thinking of converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, has been communicating with me made this comment:

I was listening to an Orthodox sermon the other day, and it was discussing the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. One of the main differences is obviously their disagreements over the Papacy.

Apparently, before the Great Schism, the Pope never had any commanding authority (except Spiritual) outside of the land under his control, namely Italy. It was because the Pope started demanding every Christian be subject to him that the Schism occured.

Now, to emphasis this point they pointed out that of all the Councils of the Early Church (Nicene etc), none of them were in Rome, they were all in Constantinople, and the Pope wasn’t at any of them. He did send some Bishops on his behlaf, but wasnt there personally. In fact, they went as far as to say that some Councils were held without even the Popes knowledge.

I guess what they were trying to get at was that the See of Peter was basically the Spiritual head of the Church, but not Vicar of Christ who was infallible speaking ec cathedra.

I havent researched these facts past this sermon, so i cant substantiate these claims.

How should I respond to this? Apologetics against Orthodoxy isn’t one of the areas I’m familiar with.

Thanks.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You COULD try reading THEIR perspective to see if they are right…since you have not studied it too much…

 

[quasimodo]

You COULD try reading THEIR perspective to see if they are right…since you have not studied it too much…

shew?

 

[Rightlydivide]

shew?

KJV

 

[Genesis315]

I haven’t really studied apologetics in the area of Eastern Orthodoxy and their claims against Catholicism. Someone , who is thinking of converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, has been communicating with me made this comment:

How should I respond to this? Apologetics against Orthodoxy isn’t one of the areas I’m familiar with.

Thanks.

You’ll need more information than that–all this person has done is made a bald assertion without backing it up with anything that we can evaluate.

Here are some good articles that evaluate what various Fathers, especially Eastern one’s, had to say, as well as historical examples of the relationship between the Bishop of Rome and other bishops, including Councils:

bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm#PAPACY

 

[Harpazo]

Was it not a Pope of Rome that approved the Canon of Scripture in the early 400s?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Rightlydivide]

Was it not a Pope of Rome that approved the Canon of Scripture in the early 400s?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

The Synod at Hippo was sent to bishops (plural) for approval.
If you mean the list of
Pope Damasus, that is considered by scholars to be fake.

 

[Harpazo]

The Synod at Hippo was sent to bishops (plural) for approval.
If you mean the list of
Pope Damasus, that is considered by scholars to be fake.

You would say that. Which scholars? He’s a real historical Pope. Just because you don’t want to accept something as a truth does not mean “scholars” consider it “fake.”

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Rightlydivide]

You would say that. Which scholars? He’s a real historical Pope. Just because you don’t want to accept something as a truth does not mean “scholars” consider it “fake.”

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

The Roman synod to which this letter was addressed was the fifth under Damasus. No formal account remains of its proceedings, nor of how its members treated the question of Nectarius. Theodosius did, however, send commissioners to Rome in support of his synod.

This historical synod at Rome gained additional importance long afterwards. According to a document appended to some manuscripts of the so-called Decretum Gelasianum or “Gelasian Decretal” and given separately in others, at this council the authority of the Old and New Testament canon would have been affirmed in a decretal. The document was first connected to this council of Rome in 1794, when Fr. Faustino Arevalo (1747-1824), the editor of Coelius Sedulius, expressed his theory that the first three of the five chapters of the Decretum were really the decrees of a Roman council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382.

Arevalo’s conclusions were widely accepted, and the text of these first three chapters, given the title of “The Roman Council under Damasus” have often been reprinted. On this theory the so-called “Damasine List” would be the earliest Western list of the Biblical canon promulgated by a council, two years earlier than the publication of the first installment of the Latin Vulgate.

Shortly before World War I, Ernst von Dobschütz had intended to publish the Damasine and Gelasian forms side by side, but in the course of his investigation he came to the conclusion that all five chapters belong to the same original work, which is not a genuine decree nor a letter either of Damasus or Gelasius, but a pseudonymous literary production of the first half of the sixth century, written between 519 and 553. In reviewing Dobschütz’ 1912 publication, F. C. Burkitt concluded "The really decisive point is that in I.3, in the part most directly associated with Damasus, there is a quotation of some length from Augustine in Joh. ix 7 (Migne, xxxv 146l).1. As Augustine was writing about 416, it is evident that the Title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei is of no historical value

 

[JMBNH]

In the Early Church there were occasions of the Pope removing Patriarchs and putting new ones in place. Also it was quite common for Eastern councils to vote in heresy only for the Pope to refuse to ratify it (e.g. some supporting Arianism, Monophysitism and Monothelitism) and all the eastern Patriarchal sees were held by heretics for a large percentage of the time. This is largely due to the influence of the Byzantine Emperor. St Cyprian of Carthage even desribed the criteria for being in the Catholic Church as being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, which he also called the See of Peter from which no heresy can come.

 

[DylanO]

I asked this question to other Catholics, not to Protestants or Eastern Orthodox, so I would really appreciate if I could get some assistance with how to respond to this question.

Thanks.