Orthodoxy vs Catholisism

[Isa_Almisry]

Do you have the quotes of these bishops under the vatican?

What I am thinking in particular of is the “Anglo-Irish Cathecism” of 1870. It called infallibility a “Protestant lie” and slander and misrepresentation of Catholic belief. We used to have a thread where the pictures of the text were posted, and its imprematur, on the EC forum, but I am told they are gone.

So far I have seen the bishop of rome compared to peter. terms such as the chair of St.Peter.

Even at Rome, the Feast of St. Peter’s Chair in February was originally the Chair of St. Peter at Rome.

If Peter was no different then any other apostle…what is the term "chair of St.Peter mean…or any other reference to peter?

There are references to other apostles and other chairs. The cathedra of Jerusalem is called the Throne (Eusebius only calls that See a Throne), and St. Epiphanius tells us that St. James and his successors sitting on it are the fulfilment of the promise to David that of his seed always sitting on his throne.

So far it looks like the eastern bishops did Know about the Filique , If representatives of the East were at the Councils. And if One refused to sign of on it…then they did know.

j
It was stuck in in 589 without anyone knowing, including Rome. It was rejected when the East found out about it. Rome fabade it when it found out about it. The council you are referring to, Florence, took place after almost a milennium of condemning it, so yes, by that time they of course knew about it.

Several questions come to mind.
WHY did that one Greek representative not sign…was it the teaching…or changing the creed?

According to his writings, both.

If Simon had no athority why was his name changed to rock…why was not ALL the apostles names not changed?

Actually the Bible says Christ renamed SS James and John.

The majority of the Early Church Fathers identify the Rock as Peter’s confession. If he doesn’t confess that confession (like Peter would do in verse 23, thank God Christ’s calling Simon Satan didn’t last!), then they are not the Rock. As we say, let the pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith, and he will be first.

If all bishops are equal in athority.
On what bases can an eastern bishop say he is incorect?

Because it contradicts the deposit of Faith.

based of what do the orthodox say
the double prosesion is false?

The same reason why the Vatican forbids saying the filioque in the Greek original

Did the east hold a council?

All the Seven Ecumenical Councils were held in the East. We’ve had several other councils, but not Ecumenical ones.

If all are equal who dose the church go to…INSTEAD of spliting?

With the one in agreement with the Holy Spirit.
The Vatican has a big problem, for instance, with the Second Ecumenical Council. Constantinople I. The Pope took no part in the Council, no Western bishop was present, and the Fathers of the Council at the time were not in communion with the Pope of Rome. And yet their Creed is the Universal one.

 

[excaliber]

So far I am reading each and every post.

I think I know that Rome says
Scripture Tradition And the Magisterium are athoritative.

With the Orthodox is it Scripture Tradishion and Councils?

What exactly Is The Holy Spirit using acording to the Orthodox?

I want to know what is ATHORITATIVE to both east and west. Then I can make a decision
based of what both east and west AGREE is being used by God to lead us into all truth.

East and west were one (so I am told) for a long time before the split. So surely we can agree on How God lead the church all that time.

So what was it

Scripture tradition and Magisterium and councils?

Once I learn this I can basicly go to God for the answere…because I would be looking for what is inspired by The Holy Spirit himself.
And using ONLY that, to find out if God did or did not make St.Peter and all in his line…head of The Catholic Church.

 

[excaliber]

Isa Almisry
Has been very active in defending Orthodoxy.
I must admit all my books and all the internet forums I go to are Roman Catholic.
So I don’t know as much about the Orthodox.

In adition to the questions on my last post. I want to learn about The Orthodox today.

In my limited knowledge there are Greek Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox,Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox…and many more. How do they all stay unified?

How often have all the Orthodox had councils after the split between east and wast?

Lets compare Orthodox councils vs
Catholic Magisterium.

And what’s this I hear about the
Second Ecumenical Council.

Was this an Orthodox Council?
And was the Bishop of Rome bound to it?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry
Has been very active in defending Orthodoxy.

Thank you. I try. I’ve also had the compliment here that I do a good job of defending the Vatican, given the issue. We do have a lot in common. Particularly in this Godless age.

I must admit all my books and all the internet forums I go to are Roman Catholic.
So I don’t know as much about the Orthodox.

you can hear some basic, and not so basic, stuff at

ancientfaith.com

In adition to the questions on my last post. I want to learn about The Orthodox today.

In my limited knowledge there are Greek Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox,Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox…and many more. How do they all stay unified?

They confess the same Faith. I have to note that the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, Ethipian, Indian, Syriac) are not yet in perfect communion again with us.
Throughout our history, when a bishop erred, he was corrected, and if refused correction the episcopacy closed ranks and expelled him. Such happened to Pope Honorius of Rome (post-mortem).

How often have all the Orthodox had councils after the split between east and wast?

We have had several general counils (we had them before the split too), but none arose to the level of an Ecumenical Council. For one thing, we never had anything like the Great Western Schism or the Reformation/Counter-Reformation to deal with.
Lets compare Orthodox councils vs
Catholic Magisterium.

And what’s this I hear about the
Second Ecumenical Council.

Was this an Orthodox Council?

yes, and Catholic.

And was the Bishop of Rome bound to it?

Evidently, as the Creed his church recites (with the addition of the filioque) is the one this Council wrote.

 

[Peter_J]

excaliber,

Hi. Late comer here. (I saw this thread last night, but didn’t have time to read it then.)

Quite frankly, reading this thread feels like reading a novel that’s been hacked into pieces and then pasted together in a random order. (Worse, actually, because you also have to consider that some statements made on this thread are true, some are false, and other are conjectures that are worth debating, but all are presented as true.)

I really don’t think this thread will help, and it may just confuse you more. If you want to understand the filioque issue better, I very strongly recommend that you read one of the following:

The first is a 1995 Catholic document called “The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the Greek and Latin Traditions” (also called “the Vatican Clarification of Filioque”).

The second is a joint document produced by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation in 2003, called The Filioque : A Church-Dividing Issue?.

 

[Peter_J]

The first is a 1995 Catholic document called “The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the Greek and Latin Traditions” (also called “the Vatican Clarification of Filioque”).

For some reason, that’s difficult to find online. (The Vatican website mentions it but doesn’t provide the full text.) However, this webpage give the text in one column, with a commentary on it in a second column.

BTW, if time is an issue, that document (the 1995 one) is notably shorter than the 2003 document.

 

[excaliber]

The problem with the Catholic Orthodox split, is that the two sides almost Cancel each other out.

The Catholic Church can win any theological argument with a protestant church, because it can trace its roots back to Christ.

This makes people logicaly think that an Apostolic church is correct because of how far back it can trace its writings.And it seems that the early church is associated with it.

But here we can see that even these churches splinter of, and teach different doctrine.

What is the point in being Apostolic, if you STILL don’t know the basics of if Councils or a Pope was used by your OWN church?

What is the point in having ancient writings if there interpretation is argued over…just like protestants
argue over interpretation of scripture.

Your church was one (so I hear) but knowone knows the basics such as who was in charge?

How is dating back to Christ valid,
If you don’t have accurate information dating back before the split.

You simply need to know if you had a pope or not.

Obviously the early Church was NOT like the Latin Catholic church,
Because every Catholic on the planet knows that the Pope runs the show. If the early Church did not know that…then there is no way it mirrored the Latin Catholic church.

However the early church (If it was united) also dose not mirror the orthodox. Because The Orthodox are split with other Orthodox. Its not united.
This shows that councils do not keep the church unified.

You end up with an early Church that was united, that apparently dosent match Latin Catholic or Orthodox.

Because these Churches are all Apostolic they have the same resume so to speak…and cancel each other out.

 

[Hesychios]

However the early church (If it was united) also dose not mirror the orthodox. Because The Orthodox are split with other Orthodox. Its not united.
This shows that councils do not keep the church unified.

How do you define unified? What do you mean by split?

I am not being facetious here, these are serious questions.

 

[Peter_J]

How do you define unified? What do you mean by split?

I am not being facetious here, these are serious questions.

I can’t speak for excaliber, but I would note that the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are not in full communion with each other.

 

[excaliber]

How do you define unified? What do you mean by split?

I am not being facetious here, these are serious questions.

Orthodox calling Roman Catholic a fallen church is hardly unified.

Coptic Orthodox believing differently about councils from other Orthodox is not unified.

If I was Orthodox in a Greek Church, and could call my friend in the Ethiopian Orthodox church…AND have the SAME teaching. AND be able to have comunion in ANY Orthodox church

that’s unified.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Orthodox calling Roman Catholic a fallen church is hardly unified.

Well we’re not unified with Roman Catholics. I don’t think anyone has claimed otherwise.

Coptic Orthodox believing differently about councils from other Orthodox is not unified.

Old Catholics or SSPX not believing the same thing as Roman Catholics is not unified.

If I was Orthodox in a Greek Church, and could call my friend in the Ethiopian Orthodox church…AND have the SAME teaching. AND be able to have comunion in ANY Orthodox church

that’s unified.

If I was Catholic in an Old Catholic or SSPX church and could call my friend in the Roman Catholic church and have the same teaching that would be unified.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I can’t speak for excaliber, but I would note that the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are not in full communion with each other.

Thought that is a problem, there is the flip side: although separated twice as long as the Vatican from us, the Oriental Orthodox are much closer to us. In fact, many (including myself) favor intercommunion with them, and vice versa, something we do only with those of our same Faith.

As for the idea of canceling out: the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox stand on one side against the Vatican, the Eastern Orthodox and the Vatican stand on one side against the technical issues against the Oriental Orthodox. The issue is canceling out, therefore, the Eastern Orthodox are left standing.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I can’t speak for excaliber, but I would note that the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are not in full communion with each other.

SSPX are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. What’s your point?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Orthodox calling Roman Catholic a fallen church is hardly unified.

EO and OO are unified in that.

Coptic Orthodox believing differently about councils from other Orthodox is not unified.

Actually, only about the ones we have in common with the Vatican.

If I was Orthodox in a Greek Church, and could call my friend in the Ethiopian Orthodox church…AND have the SAME teaching. AND be able to have comunion in ANY Orthodox church

that’s unified.

I am a Greek (actually Arab) Orthodox who has communed in the Syriac and Armenian Churches, who have spoken with them and with Copts that we have the SAME teaching.

 

[Peter_J]

Orthodox calling Roman Catholic a fallen church is hardly unified.

Coptic Orthodox believing differently about councils from other Orthodox is not unified.

If I was Orthodox in a Greek Church, and could call my friend in the Ethiopian Orthodox church…AND have the SAME teaching. AND be able to have comunion in ANY Orthodox church

that’s unified.

Well even then, complains could still be made.

Even if the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches all had the same teaching, believed the same concerning the councils, and had communion with each other, then someone could still say “Why isn’t there communion with the Lutherans? Why do Lutheran Christians believe differently about councils then Catholic/Orthodox Christians do?”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The problem with the Catholic Orthodox split, is that the two sides almost Cancel each other out.

The Catholic Church can win any theological argument with a protestant church, because it can trace its roots back to Christ.

This makes people logicaly think that an Apostolic church is correct because of how far back it can trace its writings.And it seems that the early church is associated with it.

But here we can see that even these churches splinter of, and teach different doctrine.

What is the point in being Apostolic, if you STILL don’t know the basics of if Councils or a Pope was used by your OWN church?

What is the point in having ancient writings if there interpretation is argued over…just like protestants
argue over interpretation of scripture.

Your church was one (so I hear) but knowone knows the basics such as who was in charge?

How is dating back to Christ valid,
If you don’t have accurate information dating back before the split.

You speak as if we don’t. I assure you such is not the case.

You simply need to know if you had a pope or not.

We actually had two: we still have one (look at my signature).

Obviously the early Church was NOT like the Latin Catholic church,
Because every Catholic on the planet knows that the Pope runs the show. If the early Church did not know that…then there is no way it mirrored the Latin Catholic church.

However the early church (If it was united) also dose not mirror the orthodox. Because The Orthodox are split with other Orthodox. Its not united.
This shows that councils do not keep the church unified.

The Eastern Orthodox are unified.

And the Oriental Orthodox are unified.

And the two are nearly unified.

And you are right, all that unity is based on the model of the Early Church, not the Vatican model.

You end up with an early Church that was united, that apparently dosent match Latin Catholic or Orthodox.

Because these Churches are all Apostolic they have the same resume so to speak…and cancel each other out.

As I stated above, both the Vatican and the Oriental Orthodox agree with the Eastern Orthodox where the Vatican and Oriental Orthodox differ from each other, while the Vatican and the Oriental Orthodox do not agree with the Vatican against the Eastern Orthodox on anything. (yes, Mardukm, I expect your disagreement).

 

[Peter_J]

Orthodox calling Roman Catholic a fallen church is hardly unified.

Don’t maketh me come over there!

Coptic Orthodox believing differently about councils from other Orthodox is not unified.

I think this statement might require a little explanation, vis-à-vis Chalcedon.

 

[Formosus]

I want to put this on here because I love it.

The first documented use of the Filioque was in an EO Church in the Middle East.

Peace

Not really. The first documented use of it was in the Assyrian Church of the East after they entered into schism over christological issues. Not the same as the EO Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Don’t maketh me come over there!

Pure gold fears no fire.I Peter 3:15 .

I think this statement might require a little explanation, vis-à-vis Chalcedon.

We, like the Vatican, accept Chalcedon fully (well, almost: it has a problem with canon 28. But it accepted it at their Lateran IV, and the Copts agree with us on our interpretation of it). The Copts don’t accept it fully, yet.

 

[Peter_J]

Pure gold fears no fire.I Peter 3:15 .

Your as is grass (cf. I Peter 1:24)