Orthodox Church

[Seraphim73]

Orthodoxy received the retribution of God for rejecting reunification at the Council of Florence in 1537. Just a few years later you lost your cathedral church, the Haggia Sophia, to the moslems and it stands today as a mosgue and should be a vivid reminder to all the Orthodox of rejecting God’s will. The Jews rejected the Messiah and lost their temple to a pagan army and the Orthodox did likewise.

I’m afraid you misunderstand the Gospel my friend. The suffering inflicted upon the Church and the countless martyrs and confessors are the great glory of Orthodoxy.

Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. - Matthew 5:11-12

Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. "But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. - John 15:20-21

And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. - 2 Corinthians 12:9-10

http://s21.postimg.org/asajgvn7b/agioi_neomartyres_syghroni_foriti_eikona_moni_xe.jpg

http://s27.postimg.org/uk8910nr7/pf13.jpg

 

[Seraphim73]

Actually when Ignatius wrote his 6 letters to the Catholic Church in 6 locations, when he writes to the Catholic Church of Rome, he says only to that Church it holds the presidency.

To make that point again, Irenaeus wrote,
Bk 3 Chapter 3

1. “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Irenaeus tells us where he received this teaching. “Tradition derived from Peter and Paul in Rome, and preserved by faithful men everywhere” down to his day.

One Church is led by the successor to Peter. No one else qualifies.

And as soon as Rome stopped preserving the tradition it lost its preeminent authority. Rome’s dignity was established from its Apostolic confession, not the other way around.

 

[James82]

Personally I see both Rome and the Orthodox Churches to be the ‘big brothers’ to any else who hold fast the Catholic faith as set down in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

For arguments sake, I’m still trying to figure out how the Roman See can point fingers about ‘schism’ after the adjustment to the Nicene Creed. I’m willing to learn though.

 

[steve_b]

So since my Evangelical Pastor recommended this book and you have also mentioned it, I decided to order it! Perhaps we can have a discussion about it afterwards?

Again, I would love a review with your thoughts on this book.

I would just make the following comment.

Re: JND Kelly, … Phillip Schaff is also a contemporary of Kelly and has written alot on the ECF’s.

Here’s an example of where bias (if bias is in the mind of a translator) can be introduced into historical documents. It’s through footnoting . And in the following footnote, we see how Schaff for example, a protestant, tries to introduce damage control on a very troubling passage written by a Bishop, Saint, and doctor of the Catholic Church, who was one man away from John the apostle.

In Irenaeus [Against Heresies] Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 2, Schaff admits to trying to find a less damaging phrase than “pre eminent authority” when Irenaeus was referring to the Church of Rome compared to all other churches… So what does that say about Schaff? Schaff, clearly isn’t comfortable with this language. He admits difficulty reading this. He’s got an agenda. So he tries to dismiss what Irenaeus writes through footnoting.

here’s the footnote

3313 The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) *resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome."

Personally I’m always on the lookout for footnoting nonsense.

those words of Irenaeus, in writing “Against Heresies” effect soooo many people #645

 

[steve_b]

And as soon as Rome stopped preserving the tradition it lost its preeminent authority. Rome’s dignity was established from its Apostolic confession, not the other way around.

Hasn’t done it.

 

[steve_b]

Personally I see both Rome and the Orthodox Churches to be the ‘big brothers’ to any else who hold fast the Catholic faith as set down in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

For arguments sake, I’m still trying to figure out how the Roman See can point fingers about ‘schism’ after the adjustment to the Nicene Creed. I’m willing to learn though.

Bottomline, Orthodox attack a strawman. They think we mean dual procession = dual source.] That’s a strawman of their own making.

Dual procession is orthodox, dual source is heretical.

Dual procession **≠ **dual source

JPII explains Greek vs Latin expression of proceeds

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

 

[Randy_Carson]

Personally I see both Rome and the Orthodox Churches to be the ‘big brothers’ to any else who hold fast the Catholic faith as set down in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

For arguments sake, I’m still trying to figure out how the Roman See can point fingers about ‘schism’ after the adjustment to the Nicene Creed. I’m willing to learn though.

You’re in luck. I explained that here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12553705&highlight=florence#post12553705

Just ignore the first sentence; I was being facetious.

 

[cottice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottice
I could say the same thing about using the term “Schismatic Orthodox Church”. But the fact that you can’t imagine any offense only goes to show your complete lack of christian qualities. In essence you do not care if you offend anyone. But you are not alone, if that gives you any comfort. I have found that this haughtiness is a quality that seems to permeate Orthodoxy. Furthermore, you do realize that you no longer have the filioque to use as your red herring to attempt to justify the continuing schism. So what is the excuse now? Orthodoxy received the retribution of God for rejecting reunification at the Council of Florence in 1537. Just a few years later you lost your cathedral church, the Haggia Sophia, to the moslems and it stands today as a mosgue and should be a vivid reminder to all the Orthodox of rejecting God’s will. The Jews rejected the Messiah and lost their temple to a pagan army and the Orthodox did likewise.

This post shows little or no concern on your part about offending anyone, but I would not presume to speak of your “complete lack of Christian qualities,” since I’m in no more position to reach such a conclusion about you than you are to reach such a conclusion about Seraphim73.

Haughtiness is by no means lacking among Catholics, so it probably would be best for us Catholics not to make such accusations of the Orthodox.

As for your assertions about the Hagia Sophia, you ought to stay away from that as well. For what sins of Catholics did we lose all of Northern Africa to Islam? For what sins of Catholics have some of our cathedrals been converted into mosques? For what sins of Catholics were so many churches and monasteries seized by Henry VIII of England? Also, the Hagia Sophia is no longer a mosque, it is a museum, and has been for several decades.

Let’s be fair here, Okay? Seraphim had been asked by me as well as others to use the proper name of the Catholic Church. He refused to do so.

Regarding the loss of North Africa to Islam, I attribute that to several things. First the many heresies that plagued the African Church as well as Islam’s converting people with the sword. It is happening still in sub Sahara Africa as well as in Iraq and Syria. And while we may have lost churches we did not lose the principle church as did the Jews and the Orthodox. In fact, during WWII Rome was spared the devastation of war when the Nazi’s abandoned the city. Far different story than what befell the Jews and the Orthodox.

 

[Seraphim73]

Let’s be fair here, Okay? Seraphim had been asked by me as well as others to use the proper name of the Catholic Church. He refused to do so.

Regarding the loss of North Africa to Islam, I attribute that to several things. First the many heresies that plagued the African Church as well as Islam’s converting people with the sword. It is happening still in sub Sahara Africa as well as in Iraq and Syria. And while we may have lost churches we did not lose the principle church as did the Jews and the Orthodox. In fact, during WWII Rome was spared the devastation of war when the Nazi’s abandoned the city. Far different story than what befell the Jews and the Orthodox.

“For my name is blaphemed among the nations because of you.” - Romans 2:24

You have a very strange conception of God. Hopefully it’s not one that your Church shares.

 

[tdgesq]

The name is hugely important,** AND** in this case goes with bonafides.

The name is important to make certain distinctions, but not the one at issue here. The issue here is whether the present day label “Catholic” let’s one know which church follows the true Tradition and has the true teaching authority handed down from Christ through the apostles and their successors. You want to insist that the label “Catholic” gives us useful information in that regard, but it really doesn’t. Why?

Because as just about any EO will tell you, their official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church or some other variant containing the label “Catholic.” And then there are the Old Catholic Churches. And then there is the Anglican Catholic Church, etc. So why do the Orthodox today (particularly in discussions with Roman Catholics) label themselves Eastern Orthodox?

I suppose for the same reason the Roman Catholic Church referred to itself as the “Roman Church” 80 times in the conciliar documents of Florence. That is, to distinguish itself in some way from other Churches that use the label “Catholic,” whether the use of that term is justified or not.

That’s why Augustine made the following argument

• Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental ch 4 vs 5

Well, at the time that Augustine wrote that [a.d. 397] Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire. So I have no doubt that heretics refused to point to their own house as a place where the Catholic Church met.

• “The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.”

That’s not a quote from Irenaeus. It’s a title added by the editor to his work. I went to Jurgens to confirm this is the case. In any event, it’s true. Notice it doesn’t state that the label “Catholic Church” is what allows us to know that other churches do not hold to apostolic doctrine. It’s that they cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
And just in case one is the least bit confused about who specifically these two doctors of the Catholic Church are talking of in terms of lineage from Peter, thus they identify who is head of the Catholic Church, both Irenaeus and Augustine give the lineage of bishops

• in Rome,
• by name,
• in succession from Peter.
• down to their day

Correct, but now you are making an argument for why the Catholic Church as it exists institutionally today is the true Church as testified to by the Fathers! That’s precisely what demonstration needs to be made. Not “hey, Irenaeus and Augustine used the label ‘Catholic Church’, and that’s the same label we use today (sometimes) but the Eastern Orthodox don’t (they actually do). We win!”

So yes name matters too. As Augustine says so well, every heretic and schismatic group wants to have the name Catholic Church. But only one Church qualifies for that name.

And Augustine is correct that only one group qualifies to have that name. Of course, today many other Churches do dare to label themselves “Catholic,” including the Orthodox. So now how do we decide today? I suggest we look at what they actually teach and compare it to what Church traditionally has taught.

 

[RyanBlack]

Let’s be fair here, Okay? Seraphim had been asked by me as well as others to use the proper name of the Catholic Church. He refused to do so.

Regarding the loss of North Africa to Islam, I attribute that to several things. First the many heresies that plagued the African Church as well as Islam’s converting people with the sword. It is happening still in sub Sahara Africa as well as in Iraq and Syria. And while we may have lost churches we did not lose the principle church as did the Jews and the Orthodox. In fact, during WWII Rome was spared the devastation of war when the Nazi’s abandoned the city. Far different story than what befell the Jews and the Orthodox.

The term Roman Catholic Church is widely used by Catholics to refer to themselves, and has been used by multiple Popes, as Cavaradossi has shown.

Why is it that the Muslim seizure of Hagia Sophia judgment against the Orthodox, but the loss of much of the territory under the Pope of Rome is not judgment against the Catholic Church? Furthermore, the loss of the Hagia Sophia proves nothing theologically. It was not the principle Church of all of Orthodoxy, but only of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. BTW, the Patriarchate of Constantinople still exists, just as the papacy would still exist were the Cathedral of St. John Lateran to be destroyed by natural disaster, arson, or lost to conquest.

 

[cottice]

And as soon as Rome stopped preserving the tradition it lost its preeminent authority. Rome’s dignity was established from its Apostolic confession, not the other way around.

Oh good grief!!! I recall that someone posted on Catholic Answers at one time of the 43 or 46 Patriarchs of Constnainople that actually taught heresy. I wanted to preserve that post but didn’t. If whoever posted that information could re-post it I think it would be very helpful here…

What Seraphim has posted above is an absurdity. Rome did not lose any of its authority. The power to bind and loose on earth as well as heaven was never forfeited nor was it taken away. The Orthodox like to think so to justify their schism

 

[Randy_Carson]

Gee, so this is what it feels like to watch one of these threads!

 

[Seraphim73]

Oh good grief!!! I recall that someone posted on Catholic Answers at one time of the 43 or 46 Patriarchs of Constnainople that actually taught heresy. I wanted to preserve that post but didn’t. If whoever posted that information could re-post it I think it would be very helpful here…

What Seraphim has posted above is an absurdity. Rome did not lose any of its authority. The power to bind and loose on earth as well as heaven was never forfeited nor was it taken away. The Orthodox like to think so to justify their schism

Well I guess if we’re counting some 129 popes have taught heresy.

But either way I’m not sure why any of us would think it strange that a Patriarch of Constantinople could teach heresy. No single bishop or group of bishops is infallible, the pope not excepted. And only successors to the Apostles have the power to bind and loose. No one can pretend to be a successor to the Apostles unless they hold the faith of the Apostles.

 

[cottice]

I’m afraid you misunderstand the Gospel my friend. The suffering inflicted upon the Church and the countless martyrs and confessors are the great glory of Orthodoxy.

Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. - Matthew 5:11-12

Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. "But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. - John 15:20-21

And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. - 2 Corinthians 12:9-10

http://s21.postimg.org/asajgvn7b/agioi_neomartyres_syghroni_foriti_eikona_moni_xe.jpg

http://s27.postimg.org/uk8910nr7/pf13.jpg

And likewise the Western Church. That is one of the things we share. But what we do not share is the loss of our cathedral church. The parallel between the Jews loss of the temple and the Orthodox losing the Haggia Spphia with both coming after the rejection of the Will of God is so obvious that one could see it with both eyes wide shut. But admitting it is another matter.

 

[cottice]

Well I guess if we’re counting some 129 popes have taught heresy.

But either way I’m not sure why any of us would think it strange that a Patriarch of Constantinople could teach heresy. No single bishop or group of bishops is infallible, the pope not excepted. And only successors to the Apostles have the power to bind and loose. No one can pretend to be a successor to the Apostles unless they hold the faith of the Apostles.

O come on now. For the last 500 years protestants have been trying to find just one instance where a pope taught error and have utterly failed to do so. If they did you can bet they would be shouting it from the rooftops. But not only are they silent but the mainline protestants don’t even allege it anynore. There are a few of the newer fundamentalists denominations that make such claims but they are considered by their own fellow protestants as fringe groups. Yet No one denies that Orthodox patriarchs have taught error. Does the name Nestorius ring any bells with you?

 

[cottice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottice
Let’s be fair here, Okay? Seraphim had been asked by me as well as others to use the proper name of the Catholic Church. He refused to do so.

Regarding the loss of North Africa to Islam, I attribute that to several things. First the many heresies that plagued the African Church as well as Islam’s converting people with the sword. It is happening still in sub Sahara Africa as well as in Iraq and Syria. And while we may have lost churches we did not lose the principle church as did the Jews and the Orthodox. In fact, during WWII Rome was spared the devastation of war when the Nazi’s abandoned the city. Far different story than what befell the Jews and the Orthodox

“For my name is blaphemed among the nations because of you.” - Romans 2:24

You have a very strange conception of God. Hopefully it’s not one that your Church shares.

Do I? Or is it you? Your Church shares it also. Pope John Paul went to Greece to see the Greek Patriarch and the Patriarch refused to say a prayer (The Our Father) with him.
It was only after some of his advisers told him that what he was doing was a public relations disaster that he relented. This was so typical of the Orthodox. You won’t joint with your christian brothers in prayer for the reason that they are your christian brothers but will do so only because to refuse to do so would have an adverse effect on you. I still maintain a picture taken by a member of the press of the Patriarch and the Pope sitting in chairs about 20 feet apart. Those chairs were set up by the Orthodox and are a poignant reminder of just how far the Orthodox have distance themselves from the Catholkic Church. Like I said before, You don’t have the filioque to use as your red herring anymore so now what is your excuse?

 

[RyanBlack]

And likewise the Western Church. That is one of the things we share. But what we do not share is the loss of our cathedral church. The parallel between the Jews loss of the temple and the Orthodox losing the Haggia Spphia with both coming after the rejection of the Will of God is so obvious that one could see it with both eyes wide shut. But admitting it is another matter.

I suppose it’s obvious when one is determined to interpret history through the lens of anti-Orthodox bigotry–bigotry that is so obvious that one could see it with both eyes wide shut.

 

[RyanBlack]

And likewise the Western Church. That is one of the things we share. But what we do not share is the loss of our cathedral church. The parallel between the Jews loss of the temple and the Orthodox losing the Haggia Spphia with both coming after the rejection of the Will of God is so obvious that one could see it with both eyes wide shut. But admitting it is another matter.

For which instances of the rejection of God’s will by Catholics did God judge the Catholic Church with the following: the loss of all of Northern Africa to Islam, the Avignonese papacy and the resulting Great Schism, the loss of numerous churches and monasteries to the Reformation, and the current secularization of virtually all of western Europe, including those parts that remained solidly Catholic after the Reformation?

 

[Seraphim73]

O come on now. For the last 500 years protestants have been trying to find just one instance where a pope taught error and have utterly failed to do so. If they did you can bet they would be shouting it from the rooftops. But not only are they silent but the mainline protestants don’t even allege it anynore. There are a few of the newer fundamentalists denominations that make such claims but they are considered by their own fellow protestants as fringe groups. Yet No one denies that Orthodox patriarchs have taught error. Does the name Nestorius ring any bells with you?

This is a really odd statement to make. I couldn’t care less what Protestants have been trying to figure out in regards to the papacy. But it’s simply true that the Orthodox Church holds that the Catholic Church is heterodox. That includes of course the head of the Catholic Church.