What makes Catholicism true compared to Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Rohzek]

Can you give examples of heresy endorsement? Did they actually taught heresy knowingly or were just incompetent or incapable to spot/know it? I do know some were depicted morally inadequate.

Yeah. I’ll give one example: Pope Honorius I. I don’t feel like restating what I said many months ago, so I will provide you quotes of several posts of mine that address any potential objections. I suggest clicking on the link to the original posts of mine for full context. It’s a rather old thread, but I went to great lengths to make my case. Whether or not Honorius taught ex cathedra is an issue I am not interested in discussing. I leave it to you to decide on that one.

I misspoke in that I said he was deposed, but rather the man was posthumously declared a heretic.

I honestly don’t care what Pope Leo II thought on the issue. It’s pretty clear that the Third Council of Constantinople denounced Honorius I as a heretic. Vatican I even acknowledges this, but is quick to point out Honorius I never spoke ex cathedra.

Who the heck is Steven O’Reilly? Is this guy even a credible source? Let’s cut to the chase and actually look at what Honorius I said:

“Unde et unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quia profecto a divinitate assumpta est nostra natura, non culpa, illa profecto quae ante peccatum creata est, non quae post praevaricationem vitiata.” - Patrologia Latina 80: col 0472A, EPISTOLA IV. AD SERGIUM CONSTANTINOPOLITANUM EPISCOPUM.

“And whence I confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because truly he assumed our nature from divinity, without guilt, therein truly he who is made before sin, not after the corrupt transgression [Fall of Man].” Ibid., Pope Honorius I to Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople

Now to be fair, if you read further in the letter, it becomes clear that Honorius I is concerned about the idea of Christ’s two wills diverging. This is a rather poor understanding of dithelism on Honorius I’s part. However, it is undeniable that he proclaimed a personal belief in monothelitism. If you mean negligence by teaching error, then yeah you are correct. But it was not a negligence of silence or failure to teach.

Free from personal sin and free from original sin are two different things. The latter was not discussed until the High Middle Ages.

This is Part 2 of 3.

The council did not agree in the same sense. This is what the council said:

“This pious and orthodox creed of the divine favour was enough for a complete knowledge of the orthodox faith and a complete assurance therein. But since from the first, the contriver of evil did not rest, finding an accomplice in the serpent and through him bringing upon human nature the poisoned dart of death, so too now he has found instruments suited to his own purpose—namely Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this imperial city, and further Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome, Cyrus, who held the see of Alexandria, and Macarius, who was recently bishop of Antioch, and his disciple Stephen — and has not been idle in raising through them obstacles of error against the full body of the church sowing with novel speech among the orthodox people the heresy of a single will and a single principle of action in the two natures of the one member of the holy Trinity Christ our true God, a heresy in harmony with the evil belief, ruinous to the mind, of the impious Apollinarius, Severus and Themistius, and one intent on removing the perfection of the becoming man of the same one lord Jesus Christ our God, through a certain guileful device, leading from there to the blasphemous conclusion that his rationally animate flesh is without a will and a principle of action.” - legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM06.HTM

Honorius is condemned in the same exact manner as the other bishops. There is no distinction in the acta of the Third Council of Constantinople.

 

[Rohzek]

Part 3 of 3.

But since you can’t free yourself from Leo’s statements, let’s look at what Leo actually said:

“Pariterque anathematizamus novi erroris inventores, id est, Theodorum Pharanitanum episcopum, Cyrum Alexandrinum, Sergium, Pyrrhum, Paulum, Petrum, Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae successores [subsessores, id est, insidiatores magis quam praesides] magis quam praesules, nec non et Honorium, qui hanc apostolicam Ecclesiam non apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed persana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est [G., immaculatam maculari permisit].”

“Verum piissimus imperator gratia sancti Spiritus animatus, et laborem pro Christianae fidei puritate sponte perpessus, ecclesiam Dei catholicam ab erroris haeretici macula summis nisibus purificare molitus est, et quidquid offensionem Christianis populis poterat generare, de medio Dei ecclesiae fecit auferri, omnesque haereticae assertionis auctores, venerando censente concilio condemnati, de catholicae ecclesiae adunatione projecti sunt, id est, Theodorus Pharanitanus episcopus, Cyrus Alexandrinus, Sergius, Paulus, Pyrrhus et Petrus, quondam Constantinopolitani praesules, et una cum eis Honorius Romanus, qui immaculatam apostolicae traditionis regulam, quam a praedecessoribus suis accepit, maculari consensit;” - Patrologia Latina 96, Pope Leo II to the Emperor of Constantinople

“Equally we anathemize the authors of new errors, that is, Bishop Theodorus of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Paul, Peter the successors of the Church of Constantinople; [enemies, that is, instigators as governors in greatness] as bishops in greatness, and also Honorius, who did not illustrate this apostolic church of apostolic tradition in doctrine, but in resounding treachery it was endeavored to subvert the immaculate faith [G., he permitted the immaculate to be stained].”

“Truly most pious emperor in the grace of the Holy Spirit, and (who) endured the work before the pure will of the Christian faith, who struggled to purify the catholic church of God from the upmost erroneous efforts of heretics in sin, and whoever was able to generate offense to the Christian people, are made removed from the midst of the church of God, and all authors of heretical assertions, they are condemned by the consensual council for venerating [errors], they are thrown out from the union of the catholic church, that is, Bishop Theodorus of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Paul, Phyrrhus and Peter, those bishops of Constantinople,** and one with these the Roman Honorius, who consented to have stained the immaculate rule of apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors;”**

Now, does Leo II say that Honorius is guilty of neglect? If you look at the just the first excerpt, you can certainly read it that way because of the ambiguous passive voice. But if you look at the second excerpt of the letter, it says “who consented to have stained.” This comes from the Latin, “consensit.” What does “consentio” mean? Well according to almost every Latin dictionary it means “to agree, accord, harmonize with a person or thing; to assert unitedly, determine in common, decree, to unite upon something accordingly.” Not only that, but Leo makes it even more clear by saying “and one with these the Roman Honorius.” So if you look at the Latin, Leo II clearly condemns Honorius for neglecting the apostolic tradition, AND for teaching heresy. Therefore, those secondary sources you cite, are completely wrong. They completely misunderstand Leo II. Steven O’Reilly is not a historian. He does not read Latin, as far as I can see. And he has not read the primary sources. The article by J. H. R. is over 120 years old. His arguments are dated and invalid.

 

[KnitNut]

Point taken, however, just for a little balance here on the thread - after all, a little ecumenical drivel never hurt anyone.

ncronline.org/news/global/francis-and-bartholomew-issue-resounding-historic-calls-church-reunification

The key I think is not to confuse retaining doctrinal integrity with plaque.
View attachment 22645

Yes, they agree to “work harder”. However, you’re missing the point. Even Patriarch Bartholomew has said clearly that the papacy as it stands will not be accepted by Orthodoxy. All these cheerleader-type documents are fun to read, but as far as resolving any discrete issues, they accomplish nothing. Again, I’m not speaking with acrimony, just pointing out the difference between “agreeing to talk about” an issue and actually agreeing to change dogma (on either side of the fence).

Are you implying that the RC’s recently-dogmatized papal supremacy is merely plaque that can be cleaned away with a dental drill? (Also, there’s arguably a difference between doctrinal integrity/plaque, such as mandatory priestly celebacy, and dogmatic integrity/plaque, no?)

 

[Peter_J]

So you want unity with the Orthodox Church and you want to have papacy in place. How do you plan to do that?

I think we could ask you guys the same question just in reverse. That is to say, you guys, many of you, want the RCC to come into communion with Orthodoxy in a way that would exclude Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy. Even to the point of saying that if we don’t then we don’t have real bishops.

 

[Vaseljen]

I think we could ask you guys the same question just in reverse. That is to say, you guys, many of you, want the RCC to come into communion with Orthodoxy in a way that would exclude Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy. Even to the point of saying that if we don’t then we don’t have real bishops.

The Orthodox offer is Rome’s conversion to Orthodoxy or no unity.

 

[Art321]

The Orthodox offer is Rome’s conversion to Orthodoxy or no unity.

Since Rome is in heresy, does that mean the Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics aren’t Christians??

 

[Vaseljen]

Since Rome is in heresy, does that mean the Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics aren’t Christians??

I believe that Orthodox teach that they are heterodox Christians.

 

[Art321]

I believe that Orthodox teach that they are heterodox Christians.

Yep… that’s what I thought. Basically we are Christians, but just not faithful ones that kept the ancient and holy faith passed on by the Apostles. But do our Eastern Brethern view our sacraments as legit? And in your view does the Holy Spirit dwell within the Church of Rome and its laity, priests, nuns, and bishops?

I seem to believe that many say yes while the far majority says no. Please understand I’m not trying to start an argument at all. The past few weeks, I’ve grown to admire and love the Eastern Churches and simply wish to understand their point of view, even if I do believe it to be misinformed.

 

[KnitNut]

Basically we are Christians, but just not faithful ones that kept the ancient and holy faith passed on by the Apostles.

Pretty much along the same lines as the RC view of faiths they consider heterodox. Only Orthodoxy doesn’t go around bean-counting who is “sort of like Orthodox”, “really not like Orthodox”, etc, as the RC hierarchy seem to do in such detail. You’re Orthodox, or you’re not.

As far as RC sacraments, etc…what happens outside the bounds of Holy Orthodoxy is left to God’s infinite love and mercy - the Holy Spirit blows where He wills.

 

[Art321]

Pretty much along the same lines as the RC view of faiths they consider heterodox. Only Orthodoxy doesn’t go around bean-counting who is “sort of like Orthodox”, “really not like Orthodox”, etc, as the RC hierarchy seem to do in such detail. You’re Orthodox, or you’re not.

As far as RC sacraments, etc…what happens outside the bounds of Holy Orthodoxy is left to God’s infinite love and mercy - the Holy Spirit blows where He wills.

Thank you for the reply brother. Ok, that is a fair answer, yet what do you mean that the Church of Rome views of other faiths as heterodox?

The closest thing that comes to mind is that the we are taught other religions have elements of the Truth, just not the Fullness of the Truth.

Also an unrelated question: At what point did the Eastern Churchs consider calling themselves as Orthodox??

 

[Peter_J]

I think we could ask you guys the same question just in reverse. That is to say, you guys, many of you, want the RCC to come into communion with Orthodoxy in a way that would exclude Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy. Even to the point of saying that if we don’t then we don’t have real bishops.

The Orthodox offer is Rome’s conversion to Orthodoxy or no unity.

Alright, I’ll accept that alternate description, as I don’t see much difference compared with what I said.

So can you really complain if a Catholic wants the Orthodox to come into communion with Rome (CWR), accept Papal infallibility and Papal Supremacy, etc? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Vaseljen]

Yep… that’s what I thought. Basically we are Christians, but just not faithful ones that kept the ancient and holy faith passed on by the Apostles. But do our Eastern Brethern view our sacraments as legit? And in your view does the Holy Spirit dwell within the Church of Rome and its laity, priests, nuns, and bishops?

I seem to believe that many say yes while the far majority says no. Please understand I’m not trying to start an argument at all. The past few weeks, I’ve grown to admire and love the Eastern Churches and simply wish to understand their point of view, even if I do believe it to be misinformed.

Okay i will tell you how majority of laity thinks in Orthodox countries, not in USA or west…

First, Orthodox Church does not speculate the mysteries (sacraments) outside the Orthodox Church. Local bishop decides if the convert from Roman-Catholicism should be baptized in the Orthodox Church, or just to denounce Latin teachings and be confirmed.
But majority of the Orthodox population believes that Roman-Catholic Church has no Holy Spirit in it. What, a bit more informed laity, likes to give as example is that Latin bishop failed to receive the Holy Flame in Jerusalem, and they put this as an example that God does not favor Roman-Catholic Church.
The majority also believe that Byzantine rite is superior to the Latin rite. Not small number of uneducated laity believes that Latin west used to have Byzantine rite, but then popes corrupted it and reduced it to this Latin rite of today.
Some uneducated laity believes that Roman-Catholic Church teaches that papal infallability means that pope is literally sinless like Christ. Many believe that titles such as “Vicarius Filii Dei” is an insult to God.
And i must tell you that there are a lot of conspiracy theories going on inside Orthodox Peoples about Vatican, popes and all that. And generally, People in the East really don’t like the Roman-Catholic Church, they just keep listing crimes from the past, they like to criticize also inquisition.
I listened to one bishop’s, some sort of lecture, he told to listeners, that if they engage in to theological debate with the Roman-Catholics and if they feel un-informed, he told them to say this “I don’t know much about our differences, but i know that you had inquisition and there for your Church is not true.”
Also Orthodox Christians are alergic to the Liturgical Abuse or any Liturgical change, and when some of them learn what is going on in some Novus Ordo abuses, they just reject Roman-Catholicism even more.
I remember once, a priest tried to do even a smallest change to the Liturgy, then People started yelling at him, he had to put it back as it was. He could get beaten if he kept pushing. And anyone who tries to do even a smallest modernization, People just accuse him of being papist and he loses all authority and respect among the People. In old monasteries, inside the church, they still use candles instead electrical lights. During the Liturgy, they have 2 monks who spend 10 minutes lighting all those candles. youtube.com/watch?v=3gxnyGVfDh0 Here is it how it looks like.
It is Holy Tradition and it must not be changed, as Apostle Paul commands, Traditions must be kept as they were received.
Also most People know of Filioque, they know that pope changed the Creed, and many believe that Filioque is a blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, because Filioque makes Holy Spirit inferior to the Father and the Son. They interpret it in that way.
And many also don’t like because Roman-Catholic clergy shaves. They see it as symbolical rebellion against Jesus Christ and Apostles who had beards.
Also most don’t believe in split, they believe that Rome broke away from the Church, from the 4 Orthodox Patriarchates, and 4 beats 1.
Many know that popes of Rome were more Orthodox than the Eastern Patriarchs during first 1000 years.

And stuff like that, a lot of mis-informations and simple mistrust. And they accept reunion only if pope converts fully to the Orthodox ways. And many like to say, pope must convert and repent, meaning to repent in the name of his predecessors.

Believers who are more educated (minority) about the Roman-Catholic Church, they are more tolerant of Rome. But still they are generally negative. The most tolerant Orthodox Christians are converts in USA, or Canada, western Europe and places like that, because they did a lot of research on their path towards Orthodoxy, they are well informed, and they know that things are not bad as majority in Eastern Europe thinks who were raised by their parents and society to distrust Rome completely.

 

[Kmon23]

Thank you for the reply brother. Ok, that is a fair answer, yet what do you mean that the Church of Rome views of other faiths as heterodox?

The closest thing that comes to mind is that the we are taught other religions have elements of the Truth, just not the Fullness of the Truth.

Also an unrelated question: At what point did the Eastern Churchs consider calling themselves as Orthodox??

Having taken a course on Catholicism, I do believe to my knowledge that Rome considers other faiths to be heterodox. So Protestants are heterodox Christians, where they believe in certain doctrines that are not orthodox/rooted in tradition. It’s similar to not being the fullness of truth as Protestants lack a lot, and are basically synonyms as far as I am concerned. However, they have different connotations, and as such would be the result of the ecumenical effort since Vatican II (instead of saying Orthodox are in schism and have separated from the mother church, they would prefer to say “separated brethren” nowadays).
Heterodoxy as far as I know would not apply to nonChristians since they are of completely different religions. Here they may still have truth, so “lack of fullness of truth” basically applies to all non-Catholic denominations/religions while heterodoxy only applies to Christians that are non-Catholic with substantially different theology.

However, as far as I know, Rome has never applied heterodoxy to Orientals/Eastern Orthodox from Rome’s point of view since it is not heresy that divides them from Rome, but not submitting to the pontiff (schism). But yet, they prefer to say separated brethren than “those in schism” in modern dialogue.

And in terms of being called Orthodox, I think both have their roots in the early church, where the markers of the true church was being “one, holy, catholic, apostolic” church. Here catholic is used as an adjective/marker, not as a proper adjective as the Roman Catholic church uses today (not sure how the church is addressed in official documents though).

Orthodox was also used in the first millenium as well to differentiate between the heterodox (insert heresy here) and those who kept the faith. And at this point this was before the schism, so both catholic, orthodox, christian were all used I think.

The “Orthodox” as a proper adjective only came later after the schism (not directly after, but some time later I think) to differentiate from Rome since they started using catholic as a proper adjective.

Although, in official orthodox documents, I think the church is not referred to as “Eastern Orthodox” (modern label) but as “apostolic, catholic, etc. church.”

I’m sure other Orthodox can give a more nuanced answer.

 

[ericc]

Yeah. I’ll give one example: Pope Honorius I. I don’t feel like restating what I said many months ago, so I will provide you quotes of several posts of mine that address any potential objections. I suggest clicking on the link to the original posts of mine for full context. It’s a rather old thread, but I went to great lengths to make my case. Whether or not Honorius taught ex cathedra is an issue I am not interested in discussing. I leave it to you to decide on that one.

If you are so sure that Honorius is guilty of teaching Monothelitism, why is St. Maximus the Confessor very sure that Honorius is NOT. In his The Disputation with Pyrrhus, he firmly established that Honorius mention of one-will refers to Christ human nature only.

“Pyrrhus: what can you answer about Honorius who, a few years ago stated in the letters he sent to Sergius that obviously there was but one will-power in Our Lord Jesus Christ?

“Maxim: Which version of these letters must be considered as the more undeniable, the more consistent with truth: either the one by the secretary who wrote under Honorius’ direction, and who is all the more reliable as he is still alive after illuminating all the western countries with the splendour of religious integrity, or had we better confide in what is reported by the citizens of Constantinople who conveniently utter only what pleases them?

“Pyrrhus: the more trustworthy interpretation is afforded by the one who wrote the letters.

“Maxim: now then, this is what the latter wrote to Emperor Constantine (III) when Pope John (IV) ordered him to give his own account: ‘You may be sure that what we have said of the one, unique, will-power in Our Lord, must not be understood as describing both his natures at once, the human and the divine one. This applies only to his human nature. When Sergius announced that some people taught that there were two will-powers fighting each other in Jesus Christ, we answered that there were no conflicting inclinations in Him’.”

eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm

If Honorius was teaching heresy, Pope Agatho’s letter that was read in the Council firmly state that he and his predecessors continue to confess orthodoxy. And that would include Honorius. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.v.html

“… since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing:* of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.”
“Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never ceased to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest from this they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church, by asserting one will, and one operation of the two natures in the one Jesus Christ our Lord: a thing which the Arians and the Apollinarists, the Eutychians, the Timotheans, the Acephali, the Theodosians and the Gaianitæ taught, and every heretical madness, whether of those who confound, or of those who divide the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ.”

If St Maximus didn’t think Honorius is guilty of heretical teaching and the Popes as well, so what was Honorius guilty of? This article from the American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.7, 1882, pp.162-8 explains it all. mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm as others have pointed it out but you just brushed it off as dated (120 years old) and invalid. How so? If you wish to make a claim of invalidity, you need to demonstrate that it is so, not because it is old.

If Honorius taught heresy, then Jesus lied in Matthew 16:18 and that the gates of Hades prevailed. And St Maximus was muddle headed.

 

[Rohzek]

Well, you’re talking to an Orthodox, so our interpretations of Matthew 16:18 are different. That being said, I’ll address Maximus. Plainly speaking, Maximus was wrong. He was often placed in a position to keep the Latins and Greeks together. And once settled the matter of the filioque. However, Maximus’ explanation of the filioque to the Greeks was explicitly rejected at Florence. So this isn’t the only matter for Maximus where he was wrong. And it is pretty clear in the acta of the Third Council of Constantinople and the letter of Pope Leo II that Maximus was wrong.

And sure, Pope Agatho may have said that, but you must also acknowledge that Pope Leo II condemned Honorius for neglect AND teaching heresy explicitly in his letters to the emperor. I brushed off your 120 year old article as wrong by going to the original material. I read Honorius’ letter, Leo’s letter (both in Latin), and the acta of the Third Council of Constantinople (in English translation). The 3rd condemned Hororius in the same exact manner as the rest of the heretics, who taught heresy. Then the old article of yours doesn’t even consider Leo’s letter in its entirety. If you read the whole thing, it’s pretty blatant that he condemns Honorius for teaching heresy. And just because Honorius had a poor understanding of dithelitism, it does not excuse him from teaching that Christ had only one will. And besides, the secretary’s explanation makes no sense. Honorius was explicitly told that some say Christ has two wills (human and divine) and that they might act contrary to one another. Simply stating Honorius was only talking about the human will would make no sense in the given context, because the issue of Christ having two human wills was never raised.

 

[KathleenGee]

I see alot of bad will towarsd Catholics that we do not have at all towards the Orthodox.

I am starting vespers at a Greek Orthodox church in the evenings. Met the pastor and he as well wants our sacred unity restored. I continue to take Holy Communion at my church and will not violate norms that are stated in regards to taking communion. I know the Luthernans also share the same concern.

Ericc, glad you are hear and I can follow your posts…they are helping alot.

The Church was one prior to the Schism.

I also informed locally that so much what brought the Schism about was mistranslation but it is the Orthodox laity and some bishops who are primarily preventing the restoration.

And the Latin Mass was never intended to be removed.

I attended the Seattle Cathedral on Thanksgiving that combined English and Latin with high music and it was tremendous…it could compete with any Orthodox liturgy.

Competition between East and West is very repulsive to me.

 

[KnitNut]

The Church was one prior to the Schism.

Well, I suppose if you’re talking waaay back in the day, before Chalcedon, etc. The “1054” schism was pretty far down the road, so to speak. I find many RCs really oversimplify history in these discussions, turning it into an “us/them” discussion. Which leads to:

it is the Orthodox laity and some bishops who are primarily preventing the restoration.

Ah, those stubborn Orthodox, right? No, what is preventing the restoration is the lack of true unity of faith. It doesn’t exist. You think we need to submit to your pope and all will be well. We disagree. By the same token, we proclaim Orthodoxy as the True Faith, complete an inerrant as is. You disagree. shrug All this “We neeeeeeed to unite” talk is merely feel-good, pie-in-the-sky talk unless and until we confront the very specific differences that divide the Churches. Unfortunately, it seems Rome has painted herself into a corner with the whole infallibility thing. And yes, you have a nice pope. Right now. But there’s no guarantee, just look at how the ECs have been treated historically. Now, Truth ought not be dependent upon whichever flawed man sits in a specific chair at any given time…and yet, for you, it is. This is what divides us, not those stubborn Orthodox laity & bishops you malign.

 

[Peter_J]

All this “We neeeeeeed to unite” talk …

That hinges on what is meant by “need” (or “neeeeeeed”).

If you mean in the sense of what is necessary for salvation, then as I said recently:

Lumen gentium 14: " … Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

The thing is, however, that a lot of “traditionalist” Catholics have taken this to be talking about being ICWR (in communion with Rome) or not, but the sentence right before makes it clear that it is about being Christian or not: “In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.”

(Forgive me for cutting and pasting, but considering that I am outnumbered by the “traditionalist” Catholics on this forum, I need to conserve my energy. )

 

[KathleenGee]

I believe there has been sins on both sides, and the Orthodox as such in this area does not demonstrate the fullness of the gospel by forgiveness.

I can understand the need to remember by what Islam and communism did in decimating the Orthodox, and this has caused me great pain as well as continued prayer for Russia and the intentions of the Orthodox people.

I just wish there was the same intent for us.

I seldom see any such reciprocity or good will.

My son befriended a girl on the internet, from Georgia, near Russia. After one year, they became good friends. They even discussed marriage. Her orthodox brother beat her up, and her Orthodox priest told her she would be excommunicated and she moved out and is living in a nearby village.

This is very sad.

 

[dvdjs]

many RCs really oversimplify history in these discussions,

… And yes, you have a nice pope. Right now. But there’s no guarantee, just look at how the ECs have been treated historically.

Mind blowing. If you want to take the high ground on not-oversimplified history, then you might show considerably more circumspection in talking about how ECs have been treated historically.

Truth ought not be dependent upon whichever flawed man sits in a specific chair at any given time…and yet, for you, it is. This is what divides us, not those stubborn Orthodox laity & bishops you malign.

Yes “this” is what divides us: your flawed understanding of infallibility. For us, truth most certainly does not depend on who is in the chair: once defined and declared, it is irreformable. That is the dogma.