Rebuttals against Eastern Orthodox

[Thom18]

How would you argue against the claim made by the Eastern Orthodox that they are the one true Church, especially their argument that, because they have more patriarchs, they are teaching the truth? It’s obvious enough that numbers mean nothing in regards to truth, but how do you go beyond this and get to the heart of the disagreements in your interactions with them?

 

[Genesis315]

According to them, all bishops are actually equal, so it shouldn’t matter how many patriarchates each side has.

In any event, those five Patriarchates didn’t represent equal portions of the Church–it’s wrong to say 4 of the 5 eastern patriarchates at the time of the schism were 4/5s of the Church. By divine institution, there is only the order of bishop with all being equal except Rome having primacy. Through positive law and custom, Alexandria and Antioch acquired additional authority based on their Petrine ties. These three Patriarchates, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch–in that order of primacy–governed Europe, Africa, and Asia, respectively, with Rome as the final court of appeal.

As early as the First Council of Constantinople, the emperor tried to get the bishop of his city to replace Alexandria as the Eastern primate. This was opposed by Pope St. Damasus, who reiterated the traditional ordering. This was tried again at Chalcedon, but again, the Roman Pope (St. Leo the Great) vetoed it. However, when Alexandria rejected the definitions of Chalcedon and separated from the Church (leaving only Rome and Antioch), Constantinople filled the void and the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria was instituted and was essentially a vassal of Constantinople. Jerusalem was was also separated from the jurisdiction of Antioch at Chalcedon and fell more under the influence of Constantinople, especially when the emperor later made it a patriarchate. The rise of Islam also significantly weakened Antioch to the point where it became significantly reliant on Constantinople.

So at the schism, you really only had the separation of two original Patriarchates–Rome and Antioch–and Antioch paled in significance at the time. If you prefer, it can also be looked at as a split between the chief See of the Church and the imperial power in the East, which held significant influence over the other eastern churches.

I also think the EO lack two notes of the Church in the Creed. I just did a long post on this in another thread:

Orthodox Churches versus Roman Catholic Apologetics

The Eastern Orthodox Churches lack two of the notes of the Church we profess in the Creed: they are not “one” nor are they “catholic.” These notes are interelated (you can’t really have one without the other). The jurisdiction of the papacy is necessary for the Church to be one. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are a perfect example of why this is. They get into situations where EO Church A is in communion with B, B is in communion with C, but A and C are not in communion with each other (A=B=C≠A)…

 

[Athanasiy]

It is very difficult to communicate with them on this topic.
Also, if someone in the family belongs to another religion, then he/she has to be very difficult to communicate with his family.
In Ukraine, for example, difficult with this issue, but the most difficult now in Russia.
In Russia for representatives of other denominations suffering persecution for their “other beliefs”
Perhaps these persecution will increase, because the Russian Orthodox Church is already seeking a monopoly on the truth.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not wrong in their theology. They have valid bishops and all seven valid sacraments. Their error is only in being in schism with the worldwide Church. Of course, they might say that the Catholics are in error by being in schism with them. The undeniable fact is that all Apostolic Christians should be striving to end schism.

 

[MPat]

How would you argue against the claim made by the Eastern Orthodox that they are the one true Church, especially their argument that, because they have more patriarchs, they are teaching the truth? It’s obvious enough that numbers mean nothing in regards to truth, but how do you go beyond this and get to the heart of the disagreements in your interactions with them?

In fact, you do not have to argue that numbers have nothing to do with truth. Just notice that the number of patriarchs is not the only number we can look at.

Ask which Church has more adherents. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...inations_by_number_of_members&oldid=831048533, there are 1.285 billion of Catholics and 270 million of Eastern Orthodox. Catholics “win”.

Ask which Church has more bishops or dioceses. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...ic_dioceses_(structured_view)&oldid=830639397 there are 2,988 Catholic dioceses (not counting military ordinariates and the like). According to http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/5072750.html there are 303 dioceses in Russian Orthodox Church, which is “144 more than in year 2009”. I guess we can afford to be generous and give 1000 as an estimate of number of dioceses in the whole Eastern Orthodox Church (the real number is likely to be lower). That’s still significantly less than in Catholic Church. So Catholics “win” again.

At this point you might wish to let your opponent argue that numbers are irrelevant for truth, in effect destroying his own original argument.

 

[AlNg]

How would you argue against the claim made by the Eastern Orthodox that they are the one true Church,

It is difficult because their Divine Liturgy is so beautiful and they maintain the wording of the early creed which did not have the filioque addition. Also, some of the reasons given by the Roman Catholic side in the 1054 letter of excommunication seem to be rather minor. I have heard that there are a few Roman Catholics who have expressed their sorrow over some of the Masses they have attended as they did not find them to be as spiritually uplifting as they wanted. Here are some examples of Orthodox liturgy.

 

[dochawk]

because they have more patriarchs,

The next Orthodox I hear to save this will be the first . . .

More of the Pentarchy (the five Holy Sees) landed on the other side, but I don’t think Alexandria ever broke communion with Rome (nor was it renewed with each new Patriarch for each), and I’m not sure about Alexandria, for that matter.

Of course, there is a great group photo from a few years ago with the five (?) (!) different patriarchs of Antioch (of which I believe two are Catholic), so . . .

Anyway, per current RC teaching, rebutting the EO is not a productive task. While we work towards unity, turn that attention and effort elsewhere!

hawk

 

[Genesis315]

In this snapshot in time, overall, Catholics are comparatively not doing well in this area and I’m sure it hurts our efforts at evangelization and reconciling separated brethren. That being said, I have one personal experience with Eastern liturgy, a Greek Orthodox wedding at the local Greek Orthodox Cathedral (both parties to the wedding were Orthodox). It was just as bad as any subpar ordinary western liturgy these days. It opened with a cheesy 70s style processional hymn, there was a pantsuited woman and two casually dressed men right up in front of the iconostasis that did the singing throughout the liturgy, no women had a head covering (including the pant-suited singer, despite most being Orthodox) there was no iconostasis doors (although maybe because there is no Eucharist in the wedding liturgy they took them off), and the priest constantly broke with the flow of the liturgy to tell jokes or add his own stuff. It wasn’t really what I was expecting…I was a bit disappointed.