How to defend against Orthodoxy?

[Catholic_Dude]

The See of Constantinople was founded by the Holy Apostle St. Andrew.

Byzantium essentially influnced Russia originally and so in a sense you could say that the See of Constantinople is heavily influenced also by St. Andrew. Also, Moscow is a very important location in Orthodox history and is commonly referred to as “Third Rome” and preserved Orthodoxy while the Greeks and Arabs were being suppressed by the Turks and Muslims.

I made a thread about this issue a while back and nobody (including EO posters) could give me any ECF claims that St Andrew founded Constantinople. Other sources I checked like the Catholic Encyclopedia say there is no evidence Andrew founded it and it said it was revisionist history by the Greeks. This is in stark contrast to the undisputed Apostolic roots of Rome in the ECF writings.

The Honor of being founded by St Andrew is simply gratuitous.

 

[HolyWhiteKnight]

The See of Constantinople was founded by the Holy Apostle St. Andrew.

Byzantium essentially influnced Russia originally and so in a sense you could say that the See of Constantinople is heavily influenced also by St. Andrew. Also, Moscow is a very important location in Orthodox history and is commonly referred to as “Third Rome” and preserved Orthodoxy while the Greeks and Arabs were being suppressed by the Turks and Muslims.

I messed up. I meant to say that "Byzantium essentially influenced Russia originally and so ina sense you scould say that the See of Moscow is heavily influenced by St. Andrew.

 

[surgei]

I actually made a thread on this very issue some time ago where some major EO traditions dont reBaptize while others do. This disagreement was clearly sated in a booklet which an EO Bishop wrote and was posted online a while back (dont know if it is still up).

So what of the conditional baptism of the latins? I know a woman that was got the big three Orthodox, then got them again Catholic. Latins Baptize if a person doubts the validity of their Baptism

 

[surgei]

The best analogy, perhaps, would be to contract law. In order for a contract to be valid there must be a “meeting of the minds.” If both sides assent to it, including putting their John Hancocks on the dotted line, it is still possible that the actual contract is null and void because there was no “meeting of the minds.” It is not the case that the contract was later dissolved, but that because of certain impediments (both sides didn’t actually understand the essential parts of the contract) it was never actually formed. In these cases the contract is only apparently and not actually formed.

It is not really like the views of proponents of the doctrine of eternal security.

-Rob

Analogy is always the slave of truth. This particular analogy shows the major difference in thinking east and west. The west, I think due to language barriors in that the scriptures are greek not latin, has a perception of God as judge and exocuter of decree. the East sees God primarily as Father. As such the west looks at all of the sacraments from the legal analogy. They look for validity and licitness. The Orthodox look at the love involved in the mystery of the sacraments. This is obviously an exageration of both sides.
BTW not understanding a contract does not invalidate the contract or release the party or parties from obligations duly affirmed.

 

[surgei]

I think having an understanding of the theory of development of doctrine is essential. The Orthodox tend to make very astute arguments, but I think that when the question comes down to discerning between authentic developments and corruptions, the Catholic position can do quite well. There is no reason to arbitrarily cut off doctrinal development after the seventh ecumenical council, for instance.

The Catholic position still falls however. The issue is not really one of can we see and phrase things more clearly for those who hear us today, not that the Fathers saw without clearity but that we see darkly and with the guidence of the Holy Spirit can come to understand more clearly as the Fathers did. It is really do the Catholics clearify correctly and the overwhelming answer is no.

I think the Orthodox have more room than they think for agreeing with Catholics on many issues. Oftentimes certain things are presented (especially on the internet) so as to seem more monolithic than they are in fact, and some of the views which are popular among Orthodox believers now aren’t necessarily “the belief” or rather “the position” of the Orthodox Church. It would probably be most fruitful thing to do to examine these.

I think your own Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (I think that is what Cardinal Ratz old post was anyway I think you know what I mean) is doing a prety good job of backpeddling into the Orthodox position. Look at the recent decleration on Limbo. (There is a seperate thread for this so please lets not drift that way here.) As far as the “views popular among Orthodox believers” look closer at how we see the Spirit guiding the Church. If you really want to find descrepancy between Bishops and people look in the miror my Roman Catholic brothers. This is a problem my RC youth minister roomate and I discuss all the time.

Granted, I feel that I hardly have the depth of knowledge to accurately and honestly address these issues. I’m reading as much as I can to try to remedy that, but I think such a task is a task of a lifetime.

That is a noble goal if you remain humble. Remember the Proverbs though “Knowledge puffs up but love builds up”. Prayer and fasting is the only key to this.
With much love in Christ.
Your servant and brother,
Surgei

 

[surgei]

I messed up. I meant to say that "Byzantium essentially influenced Russia originally and so ina sense you scould say that the See of Moscow is heavily influenced by St. Andrew.

Self rule came from Rome however. Was not St Kyrell sent with true authority and consecrated by Rome? This shows what the Orthodox have said all along. Rome at one time believed Bishops had real powers of their own and now they say they get them only when they are in comunion with Rome. The Old Catholic Church attests to this as well.
Yes Russia was converted quickly by the East. Why though? Is it not because the people were allowed to understand the worship they offered while Latins insisted on using latin? Was this not the start of Romes fall from Grace in that she attempted to force all men to be like her? Were not our fathers responsible for not putting an end to it then?

 

[surgei]

First of all divorce is explicitly listed as a grave sin in Scripture, thus to approve of it is unacceptable from the start. Turning and saying “you do it too” doesnt excuse the fact you have excused grave sin. An annulment is not a guarantee or back door, if the Church finds that marriage to be valid then that couple is joined for life.

You must admit the concept of an annulment for basic justice to exist. If conditions have to be met and they are not met then the marriage was invalid, just as if a layman prays over the bread to consecrate it the sacrament was invalid (he lacked the power of the ordained priesthood), or if a priest Baptized in the name of the Father, Wife and Son the sacrament would be invalid (improper form).

It is different from the Calvinist view in that the Church can step in and determine one way or the other, in the Calvinist view the stakes are salvation itself and there is no objective way to determine if you yourself were really saved. Further it is not a sin if the annulled couples were acting in good faith, in the Calvinist view it is literally a damnable sin.

Are not the Catholics blowing this one up a bit?
Is not the bad end proof of the bad start?
Justice is the slave of Love whose hand is mercy and fruit is forgiveness.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Apostolic See is where Peter and Paul made their final stops, this is clearly taught in the ECFs. Peter was the head apostle and it was fitting for Popes have had to step in and correct problems.

Like he did over circumcision in Galatians? St. James presided at the Council of Jerusalem.

The two major Sees in Orthodoxy, Constantinople and Moscow, neither have Apostolic origin.
On top of this, especially today, the Russian Orthodox church acts as if it is above Constantinople.

Constantinople does, but its primacy doesn’t derive from it. Nor did, according to the Ecumenical Councils, did Rome’s.

Those Sees are not even major sees and havnt been for centuries. Further Alexandria was founded by Peter’s right hand man Mark and Antioch by Peter before going onto Rome.

Both are, and have been, major sees.

What do you mean? I was especially talking about today where there are old Soviet states claiming to be their own Orthodox branches, and Constantinople accepts this, but Moscow considers them schismatic. There is no leader who can step in and solve the dispute.

Nor was their in your schisms, the Great Western Schism being only the largest, and a cause of the following Reformation. But whereas ours are local problems, yours raged all across Europe (with bishops voting in national blocks) and throughout your church.

That doesnt answer my claim that there is no way to call one.
I was talking to an EO and he said apart from an Emperor there is no way to call one.

And I’ve talked with Latins who say everything that the pope says is infallible. Is that Latin teaching?

That we have had Pan Orthodox councils called proves that if we needed, we could call an Ecumenical council. We just haven’t had any need.

I was talking about Original Sin in general, for example ideas like Baptism of Infants when the Creed says “for the forgiveness of sins”, yet if OS doesnt exist why is the child Baptized when removal of sins is the first and foremost effect?

Who denies original sin? Pelagianism was a Western heresy (still is).

I was talking about the distinction of Essence vs Energies where some EO talk as if God is divided into two parts. (big discussion for another thread).

No EO divides God, they merely repeat what the ECF (the Cappodocians for instance) say.

Annulment means something prevented a real marriage from taking effect, that is very different than divorce which is explicitly forbidden in Scripture.

Legal pretence. I’ve never been impressed by lawyer speak.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I made a thread about this issue a while back and nobody (including EO posters) could give me any ECF claims that St Andrew founded Constantinople. Other sources I checked like the Catholic Encyclopedia say there is no evidence Andrew founded it and it said it was revisionist history by the Greeks. This is in stark contrast to the undisputed Apostolic roots of Rome in the ECF writings.

The Honor of being founded by St Andrew is simply gratuitous.

On an erstwhile forum, a Chaldean posted something from their church about Andrew founding the church in Byzantium. As the Assyrians parted from the rest of the Church in the 5th cent., the tradition would predate that, and 1054.

Before that Eusebius quotes origen on Andrew preaching through Asia Minor into Scythia, along the Black Sea and up the Volga.
Constantinople is on the crossroads of these travels.

And before that the Acts of Andrew specifically mention him coming to Byzantium (predecessor of Constantinople).

 

[surgei]

you do some great work Isa:thumbsup:

 

[jam070406]

you do some great work Isa:thumbsup:

Yes, he’s great at this tactic:

DIVERSION TO ANOTHER QUESTION OR SIDE ISSUE THROUGH IRRELEVANT OBJECTIONS, QUESTIONS, OR STATEMENTS:
People who advocate erroneous views are often conscious of their weak stand. Truth is their greatest enemy, and so as not be exposed they try to divert attention to side issues. This can be done in many way, including the raising of irrelevant objections, questions, or by making irrelevant statements.

For a prime example refer to post #48.

 

[Pons]

For sure, research, research, research. Be wary of selective quoting (I know that cuts both ways). I mean no ill-will upon the poster, of course, who most probably acted in good faith, and may have not known the whole quote. (In fact I have him/her to thank.)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes, he’s great at this tactic:

DIVERSION TO ANOTHER QUESTION OR SIDE ISSUE THROUGH IRRELEVANT OBJECTIONS, QUESTIONS, OR STATEMENTS:
People who advocate erroneous views are often conscious of their weak stand. Truth is their greatest enemy, and so as not be exposed they try to divert attention to side issues. This can be done in many way, including the raising of irrelevant objections, questions, or by making irrelevant statements.

For a prime example refer to post #48.

Can you be more specific?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So what of the conditional baptism of the latins? I know a woman that was got the big three Orthodox, then got them again Catholic. Latins Baptize if a person doubts the validity of their Baptism

That is a different story. A conditional Baptism is PRECISELY what guards against multiple Baptisms. This is very different from receiving an unconditional second Baptism.

Are not the Catholics blowing this one up a bit?
Is not the bad end proof of the bad start?
Justice is the slave of Love whose hand is mercy and fruit is forgiveness.

No the bad end is not the proof of a bad start.

Like he did over circumcision in Galatians? St. James presided at the Council of Jerusalem.

He was not preaching heresy in Galatia. As for St James at the Council of Jerusalem, there is a famous St Chrysostom quote where he makes it clear James was the head of the Jerusalem congregation, while Peter was head of the global church.

Constantinople does, but its primacy doesn’t derive from it. Nor did, according to the Ecumenical Councils, did Rome’s.

Constantinople’s primacy is virtually entirely built on political motives, especially how it moved its way up to go above Alexandria and Antioch. The Ecumenical Councils are very clear of Rome’s Apostolic origin, as is the undisputed testimony of the ECFs.

Both are, and have been, major sees.

They were pushed aside for political reasons so that Constantinople could rise to authority, and have held a back seat role from then on.

Nor was their in your schisms, the Great Western Schism being only the largest, and a cause of the following Reformation. But whereas ours are local problems, yours raged all across Europe (with bishops voting in national blocks) and throughout your church.

You are changing the subject and not realizing your problem remains. Constantinople can recognize a Eastern national Orthodox church, yet Moscow can chose not to recognize it, who is right and who ultimately decides if their sacraments are valid considering no salvation outside the church?

As for the “Great Western Schism” it basically came down to the Apostolic See versus the political See of Constantinople, most of the Orthodox who sided with Constantinople did so because of the strong pressure of Constantinople. Also it is worth mentioning the EO Bishops caved in to pressure back home and abandoned the agreements at Florence, so to put total blame on us for the Schism is unwarranted.

As for the Protestant Deformation, the Catholic Church did not cause it, but through the guidance of the Holy Spirit called the Council of Trent to deal with the issue. Now with Protestants going East at an increasing rate the Orthodox need a Trent style council.

And I’ve talked with Latins who say everything that the pope says is infallible. Is that Latin teaching?

No that is not Catholic teaching by a long shot. But that doesnt answer my claim that you have no way to call an Ecumenical Council.

That we have had Pan Orthodox councils called proves that if we needed, we could call an Ecumenical council. We just haven’t had any need.

What is the difference between a Pan Orthodox and Ecumenical?

Who denies original sin? Pelagianism was a Western heresy (still is).

The EO stand is borderline on accepting Original Sin, for they teach that nothing in the infant prevents their entrance into Heaven, yet they Baptize them anyway. Pelagianism first and foremost denies that man is born lacking sanctifying grace, the EO focus a lot on the physical effects and “bad example” and urges to sin, but there ranges from denial of loss of sanctifying grace (majority opinion) to the acceptance of the loss of sanctifying grace (minority opinion).

No EO divides God, they merely repeat what the ECF (the Cappodocians for instance) say.

It is an issue for another thread, but apparently Palamas did take it too far.

Legal pretence. I’ve never been impressed by lawyer speak.

You dont get it then. Divorce means you admit the marriage was valid but you go ahead and proceed to tear apart what God has joined.
Here is a crystal clear example: If a contract states you must be 21 to be eligible to sign, and you are only 20 yet go to sign on that contract doesnt take effect. This is similar to how a marriage didnt take effect when an annulment is determined. If the Church checks and finds the marriage is valid then there is no annulment. Now, a divorce means you are over 21 and sign the contract and are truly bound to it, however down the road though you admit the contract is valid you take it upon yourself to tear it up, and even dare to enter into another contract. That is the difference between annulment and a divorce.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

He was not preaching heresy in Galatia. As for St James at the Council of Jerusalem, there is a famous St Chrysostom quote where he makes it clear James was the head of the Jerusalem congregation, while Peter was head of the global church.

I know the quote (for want of space, I won’t go into it here), it is strange that it plays no role in his exegises on “upon this rock I will build my Church.”

Constantinople’s primacy is virtually entirely built on political motives, especially how it moved its way up to go above Alexandria and Antioch. The Ecumenical Councils are very clear of Rome’s Apostolic origin, as is the undisputed testimony of the ECFs.

Oh?
Chalcedon, c. 28:
Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out—the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome — we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved **by the same purpose **the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.

Nothing on the Apostles.

They were pushed aside for political reasons so that Constantinople could rise to authority, and have held a back seat role from then on.

They haven’t been the cypher that you imply.

You are changing the subject and not realizing your problem remains. Constantinople can recognize a Eastern national Orthodox church, yet Moscow can chose not to recognize it, who is right and who ultimately decides if their sacraments are valid considering no salvation outside the church?

We’ve passed through this, and all lived.

As for the “Great Western Schism” it basically came down to the Apostolic See versus the political See of Constantinople, most of the Orthodox who sided with Constantinople did so because of the strong pressure of Constantinople. Also it is worth mentioning the EO Bishops caved in to pressure back home and abandoned the agreements at Florence, so to put total blame on us for the Schism is unwarranted.

They caved into pressure to go to Florence in the first place. Pressure from the emperor: the only caesaropapism that the Latins seem to approve is uniatism.

The Great Western Schism I referred to was your in involved the pope’s stint at Avignon. Only the greatest of a number of succession crisis over that symbol of unity, the pope of Rome.

As for the Protestant Deformation, the Catholic Church did not cause it, but through the guidance of the Holy Spirit called the Council of Trent to deal with the issue. Now with Protestants going East at an increasing rate the Orthodox need a Trent style council.

Your wayward brothers already necessitated one, the synod of Jerusalem.
catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No that is not Catholic teaching by a long shot. But that doesnt answer my claim that you have no way to call an Ecumenical Council.

The Synod of Jerusalem was called to deal with the Calvinists (and Jesuits, though not directly). The patriarch of Jerusalem called it, bishops from as far away as Russia came and approved its decisions, and it was ratified by all the Churches. No pope nor emperor needed.

Your criteria has a problem with your council of Constance, called by the emperor Sigismund for an “antipope” (at the time three claimed to be pope, and all had their supporters, college of cardinals, etc, and had so for 40 years). Parts were held under the “antipope,” parts under who is considered the “true” pope. Bishops voted in national blocks and elected another pope.

What is the difference between a Pan Orthodox and Ecumenical?

Ecumenical are infallible. Pan Orthodox just have universal authority.

The EO stand is borderline on accepting Original Sin,

It does no such thing.

for they teach that nothing in the infant prevents their entrance into Heaven, yet they Baptize them anyway.

From the Synod of Jerusalem:

DECREE XVI.
We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord saith, “Whosoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, it is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord shewed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whosoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Saviour would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And forasmuch as infants are men, and as such need salvation; needing salvation, they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved; so that even infants ought, of necessity, to be baptised. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptised is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptised. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptised, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who saith expressly, “And they are vouchsafed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine saith that it is an Apostolical tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church giveth to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnisheth them with a particular heart.”

Pelagianism first and foremost denies that man is born lacking sanctifying grace, the EO focus a lot on the physical effects and “bad example” and urges to sin, but there ranges from denial of loss of sanctifying grace (majority opinion) to the acceptance of the loss of sanctifying grace (minority opinion).

We are corrupted by history, not nature. The image is there, though the scarring from sin makes the likeness difficult, only overcome by the grace of the Holy Mysteries.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It is an issue for another thread, but apparently Palamas did take it too far.

he merely stated what the other Fathers stated.

You dont get it then. Divorce means you admit the marriage was valid but you go ahead and proceed to tear apart what God has joined.
Here is a crystal clear example: If a contract states you must be 21 to be eligible to sign, and you are only 20 yet go to sign on that contract doesnt take effect. This is similar to how a marriage didnt take effect when an annulment is determined. If the Church checks and finds the marriage is valid then there is no annulment. Now, a divorce means you are over 21 and sign the contract and are truly bound to it, however down the road though you admit the contract is valid you take it upon yourself to tear it up, and even dare to enter into another contract. That is the difference between annulment and a divorce.

the problem with your contact analogy is that anyone can attack the contract in any court, at any time, because it is void.

With the annullment scheme (and mind you, I’d love to see some history of its setup), only when the couple decide to split, do they go on a fishing expedition for a legal pretense.

Case in point: I know someone who married his girlfriend because they got pregnant. By the strict application of the principles that I have seen, this would invalidate the marriage. The witnesses to the church wedding signed documents denying just this impediment (i.e. they lied). Now is the marriage invalid? Can I go and tell Fr. X “you know, they married because they had to, blah, blah, blah…” unlike the contract example, no.

If the grounds for an annulment exist, and the couple refuse to part, then what?

The inconsistency/hypocrisy is shown in the canon on the legitimacy of the children. If the marriage is invalid, it is void ab initio, and therefore the children cannot be legitimate, as there is no legitimate marriage to issue them.

 

[Alexius]

You are changing the subject and not realizing your problem remains. Constantinople can recognize a Eastern national Orthodox church, yet Moscow can chose not to recognize it, who is right and who ultimately decides if their sacraments are valid considering no salvation outside the church?

A council can decide should it come to that…

As for the Protestant Deformation, the Catholic Church did not cause it, but through the guidance of the Holy Spirit called the Council of Trent to deal with the issue. Now with Protestants going East at an increasing rate the Orthodox need a Trent style council.

Already had one. Actually two…Jerusalem and Jassy.

What is the difference between a Pan Orthodox and Ecumenical?

Ecumenical = Worldwide infallible, whereas Pan-Orthodox does not include infallibility, and is subject to interpretation…

The EO stand is borderline on accepting Original Sin, for they teach that nothing in the infant prevents their entrance into Heaven, yet they Baptize them anyway. Pelagianism first and foremost denies that man is born lacking sanctifying grace, the EO focus a lot on the physical effects and “bad example” and urges to sin, but there ranges from denial of loss of sanctifying grace (majority opinion) to the acceptance of the loss of sanctifying grace (minority opinion).

Actually, if you read the writings of the Eastern Fathers, all of them speak of “spiritual death.” On top of that, the many Catechisms developed by the Orthodox that were approved at Jassy and Jerusalem, and the Longer Catechism of Philaret, all speak of the soul lacking sanctifying grace. No one is born lacking grace, though, insofar as God’s grace works on them from the outside. I think that it is all semantics. Those who say we do not lack grace are right, because it operates on us from the outside. Those who say we do are right aswell, because we lack the grace that sanctifies our souls…

You dont get it then. Divorce means you admit the marriage was valid but you go ahead and proceed to tear apart what God has joined.
Here is a crystal clear example: If a contract states you must be 21 to be eligible to sign, and you are only 20 yet go to sign on that contract doesnt take effect. This is similar to how a marriage didnt take effect when an annulment is determined. If the Church checks and finds the marriage is valid then there is no annulment. Now, a divorce means you are over 21 and sign the contract and are truly bound to it, however down the road though you admit the contract is valid you take it upon yourself to tear it up, and even dare to enter into another contract. That is the difference between annulment and a divorce.

That is the problem though. How are we to know the mind of the married couple. In America, annulments are handed out in rediculous numbers. Are you saying that those who married before God and His Church were really never married?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[SPH1]

Eastern Orthodoxy is very close to Catholicism. Their main error, IMO, is schism. Schismatic tendencies are solidly part of their genetic make-up, and they seemingly can dredge up anything as an excuse for schism.

To me, the schismatic Eastern Orthodox are the first Protestants.

One possible way to handle them is to point out that they - and their Bishops/Patriarchs - have absolutely no authority whatsoever over any Catholic or Catholic Bishop/Prelate. Nor do they have any authority whatsoever to universally define the Christian Faith.

 

[Alexius]

Eastern Orthodoxy is very close to Catholicism. Their main error, IMO, is schism. Schismatic tendencies are solidly part of their genetic make-up, and they seemingly can dredge up anything as an excuse for schism.

To me, the schismatic Eastern Orthodox are the first Protestants.

One possible way to handle them is to point out that they - and their Bishops/Patriarchs - have absolutely no authority whatsoever over any Catholic or Catholic Bishop/Prelate. Nor do they have any authority whatsoever to universally define the Christian Faith.

Schism their main error? I’m sorry, but it was Rome who sent them away…As for being the first Protestants, that’s just mean. They can easily say the same of Rome. How? Rome has the Pope who decides doctrines of faith. An individual. For Protestants, each person decides doctrines of faith. An individual.

As for the last paragraph, I think it is obvious that Orthodox bishops have no more authority over Catholics than Catholic bishops have over Orthodox. The part after your first statement is untrue. No one bishop of the Orthodox Church can define doctrine, but the bishops together do.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius