Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Mickey]

The Pope can pronounce a doctrine without the help of a council.

Not in the early undivided Church.

 

[Pons]

Not in the early undivided Church.

John Chapman on: John Chrysostom on: Peter on the election of Matthias:

He did not say: ‘We are sufficient.’ So far was he beyond all vain glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and in regard that prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed.

Peter could have appointed Judas’ replacement himself, but chose to let the church nominate candidates.

(via the ever-helpful site of PhilVaz…)

 

[prodromos]

John Chapman on: John Chrysostom on: Peter on the election of Matthias:

He did not say: ‘We are sufficient.’ So far was he beyond all vain glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and in regard that prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed.

Peter could have appointed Judas’ replacement himself, but chose to let the church nominate candidates.

(via the ever-helpful site of PhilVaz…)

As pointed out earlier, St John Chrysostom did not equate Peter and the Pope of Rome. For the most of his life as a Christian, from the time of his baptism and subsequent ordination, Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome and never considered it a necessity or even something to be concerned about. Your ultramontanist interpretation of his words is in complete contrast to his living testimony.

John

 

[Mickey]

As pointed out earlier, St John Chrysostom did not equate Peter and the Pope of Rome. For the most of his life as a Christian, from the time of his baptism and subsequent ordination, Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome and never considered it a necessity or even something to be concerned about. Your ultramontanist interpretation of his words is in complete contrast to his living testimony.

John

Amen.

 

[steve_b]

Hey Steve,

Yeah I was looking into it, and it appears that our sites are directly connected by this site:

biblelight.net/

This site is a Seventh Day Adventist Site, and gives a link to RCC sites at the bottom (of course while at the same time calling them of the devil and what not).

They also make it clear that the edition you gave was revised.

I am a huge opponent of Seventh Day Adventists, but this is not the post and not the time to go into that. Nonetheless, I would recommend being more careful in your sources.

John

I couldn’t find Mickey’s quote on a Catholic source. It all came from SDA’s and the like.

 

[steve_b]

Steve, you were completely speculating that had the EO stayed with the Pope then they would have been spared,

now you are telling me not to speculate. I cannot continue a discussion on this if you are not willing to be consistent and open to challenges.

Again, you were speculating first about what would happen if they had stayed with the Pope, this is really unfair and inconsistent.

Regarding the EO being “divided”:
It is very important, especially if they are divided as you accuse, but it is inconsequintial to our discussion, unless you are going to some how show with facts how a dispersed authority somehow caused them to be conquered more easily. (Again, many would argue that that is what helped preserve them as while many were conquered, others in Russia were free)

Because I am not a Catholic, nor am I an Orthodox. As a third party I try not to use loaded terms regardless of my belief or unbelief in them.

Very well, then the argument is over, because you cannot speculate on what would have happened had the EO Church stayed unified to Rome. If we do not speculate, then we might as well not think and all just call ourselves agnostics.

John,

So far we’ve had 20 conversations between us on this thread out of 400+ posts… For my part, I’ve given you resources not speculation. If you go back and look at the posts, you’ve disagreed with me on practically everything I’ve said.

Maybe you’re right, that DOES sound like an argument albeit a very civil one

John:

I originally said North Africa and countries counquered by Islam. My example is perfect, to bring up other countries which were barely affected by Catholicism at that time, or which were not as affected by Islam later would be entirely irrelevant, like bringing countries from South America into this conversation, it is literally meaningless.

I think I gave context to your question. Wejust didn’t talk about specific dates. Therefore, I took it as open ended
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3694346&postcount=449

Look, I know you’re not for the papacy, central authority, and from your first post you favor the Orthodox. Well, I didn’t duck your questions, I gave you specific numbers, for Catholic populations, diocese, names of heads of diocese, etc broken out per diocese , not only in the 4 N African countries you mentioned, also you could see surrounding African countries neighbor to those 4 and THEIR statistics. And you could further see statistics on the continent of origin, of Islam. And also search the world for Catholic statistics as well. I’ve shown you what the CC has done. Now if you’re going to be fair and balanced, (in your devil’s advocate role) you need to find out what the Orthodox have done.

John:

Also, I did not say that Catholicism existed there because of modernization and international pressure, I said it survived IN NORTH AFRICA, largely because of these things, otherwise Islam may have wiped them off the face of the planet as it did Zoroastrianism and other indigenious religions. You are twisting my words to an extreme which is simply not realistic.

you phrased it awkwardly and I misread you. Sorry :tiphat:

John:

I could think of a great many reasons why he would have said this. Nonetheless, Gorbachev was not communist russia, he was only the representative head of it. And as I stated before this example is not directly (or perhaps even indirectly) related to this discussion.

And the reason it is related to this discussion is because you basically asked how the pope matters. So I picked a local issue, Attila the Hun turned away by the pope from sacking Rome, and an international issue, JPII and the fall of Communism.

BTW, re: Gorbachev, your comment here is just an example of how you take whatever I say and find some way to disagree. When Gorby said communism wouldn’t have fallen without JPII, I take the general secretary of the communist party at his word.

John:

This was not smart, you actually quoted from the same site, they were merely giving your cite as an example of what not to believe. The site is SDA, andthe edition was later. I do not think that it has too much bearing on the discussion either way, but you need to be careful (I am sure you would like to retract your quote as well )

This was Mickey’s deal. He brought it up. Not me. Even though he is an ex Catholic he should know better. The Keenan catechism is a favorite with SDA’s.

 

[John214]

Hey Steve,

Good to hear from you!
Steve B:

So far we’ve had 20 conversations between us on this thread out of 400+ posts… For my part, I’ve given you resources not speculation. If you go back and look at the posts, you’ve disagreed with me on practically everything I’ve said.

1. This is not pertinent to our conversation at hand. Regardless of past discussion between us, the issue at hand still needs to be addressed. You said that had the EO been in communion with the Pope, then things may have turned out differently.
2. I addressed the resources you have given and you have been unfair in your charge of “speculation”, if we are not to speculate then you need to give up your position.

Steve B:

Look, I know you’re not for the papacy, central authority, and from your first post you favor the Orthodox.

Then you have misread me. I am neither for nor against the papacy, I am for the honest truth of the matter. I have no problem with central authority and actually prefer it to confusion and weak authority. And there is no reason for you to assume I favor the Orthodox. But these issues are not important, we are dealing with a question and that is what is important, not my personal beliefs (which I have tried to keep out of this). Deal with the assertions not with assumptions of my personal character.
Steve B:

Well, I didn’t duck your questions, I gave you specific numbers, for Catholic populations, diocese, names of heads of diocese, etc broken out per diocese , not only in the 4 N African countries you mentioned, also you could see surrounding African countries neighbor to those 4 and THEIR statistics.

The population of neighboring countries to the North African Countries are not related to this question as the populations of Catholics was smaller there even then, and the Muslim armies did not invade those areas until much later, and much more slowly. The N. African countries I mentioned are pertinent to the example of the EO Church, I cannot think of any better examples, and clearly in these examples, being in union with Rome was not enough to save them from near extinction.
Steve B:

Now if you’re going to be fair and balanced, (in your devil’s advocate role) you need to find out what the Orthodox have done.

I do not understand exactly what you mean by this, are you saying that the EO has not evangelized as much as the RCC has? Or that the EO has not sustained its population as well as the RCC? This is a completely separate issue, and if you would like we can discuss it, but not in relation to the current question of the role the Pope could have played in preventing Islam from conquering Constantinople and the East in general.
Steve B:

And the reason it is related to this discussion is because you basically asked how the pope matters. So I picked a local issue, Attila the Hun turned away by the pope from sacking Rome, and an international issue, JPII and the fall of Communism.

Ok, so you are saying that had the Eastern Church stayed in communion with Rome, that somehow the Pope would have prevented the Muslims from even having been able to conquer the East? That is fine, but please explain exactly how you expect the Pope to have been able to do this. (Keep in mind that the East did attempt to rejoin Rome, for the explicit purpose of preventing the Muslims from taking over, councils in 1200s and 1400s Florence, and they did anyways).
Steve B:

Gorbachev, your comment here is just an example of how you take whatever I say and find some way to disagree. When Gorby said communism wouldn’t have fallen without JPII, I take the general secretary of the communist party at his word.

Steve, I am not disagreeing with you. I agreed that Gorbachev believes it to have been so, and that the John Paul II did play a crucial role in bringing the Soviet Union down, but I also acknowledged that there were perhaps bigger factors at play. An increasingly powerful United States, economic strain on the USSR, a leader (Gorbachev) who was much softer than previous leaders. And still Gorbachev may very well have had a great many reasons to deny other factors. (Saving face to an anti-capitalist public, etc.)
Steve B:

This was Mickey’s deal. He brought it up. Not me. Even though he is an ex Catholic he should know better. The Keenan catechism is a favorite with SDA’s.

Yes it was Mickey’s deal, but you criticized him for using faulty sources (Mickey has not yet cited his source, so we do not know that he obtained it from SDA sources) and yet you countered him with a source that was directly linked to an SDA site, which clearly states that the work was a later edition.

Mickey may just be making up his source (we have no reason to believe him as he did not give the citation) but at the same time, he could very well be citing what was the actual original Keenan Catechism. What you need to do, is provide some source which shows that this original either does not exist, or did not say what he claims it did. Otherwise challenge him that since he did not cite his source you do not believe him.

Personally I do not think it makes a huge amount of difference, certainly there are Catholics who have disagreed with Infallibility, just like there have been Eastern Patriarchs who disagreed with the divine nature of Christ. What matters is there actual positions. (However, if it can be shown that their position are inconsistent then this may be damaging)

Finally Steve, do not think that simply because I challenge your position that it means that I disagree or that I am simply out to “disprove” the RCC. I comment where I can, and my intention is to get a strong answer for why the EO is at fault and the RCC position is the fullness of the Truth. If I was certain that it was so, then I would have created a thread that said, “Why I believe the EO was wrong” and if I was certain that it was not then I would have created a thread that said, “Why I believe the RCC was wrong”. Here I let you and others give the affirmative case, then I challenge it, and then you challenge my challenges, until hopefully we can reach agreement. If I see that a position is thoroughly dealt with by another, I try to stay out of it unless I have questions.

God Bless,

John

 

[Mickey]

Mickey may just be making up his source (we have no reason to believe him as he did not give the citation) but at the same time, he could very well be citing what was the actual original Keenan Catechism. What you need to do, is provide some source which shows that this original either does not exist, or did not say what he claims it did. Otherwise challenge him that since he did not cite his source you do not believe him.

Blessings John,

My source is Orthodox.
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx

However, my interest is now peaked. I am going to visit libraries and do some research to see if I might be able to get my hands on an original copy of the Keenan catechism.

 

[anthony022071]

Not in the early undivided Church.

Yes,they did. Pope Callistus ruled that adulterers may be admitted to communion with the Church after due penance. Pope Stephen ruled against Cyprian that heretics should not be re-baptized if they had been baptized with the traditional formula. Pope Leo promoted his Tome in the East even before the Council of Chalcedon was called.

Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, (d. AD 449), writing to Pope Leo I:
“The whole question [of Eutychianism] needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy… and so the convening of a council which is any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.”
(As cited in V. Soloviev, Russia and the Universal Church)

Council of Chalcedon to Pope Leo,Ep. 98:
“You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter and to all you impart the blessings of that faith.”

See this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=235272

 

[Mickey]

Pope Leo promoted his Tome in the East even before the Council of Chalcedon was called.

LOL!

The council had to approve it.

 

[anthony022071]

The council had to approve it.

Yes,but not in the sense that you mean.
The council “had to approve it” in the sense that the Tome was undeniably orthodox,and the pope had authority over the council.
The pope didn’t need,or wait for,the council’s ratification to promote his Tome as Church doctrine in the East.

 

[Mickey]

The pope didn’t need,or wait for,the council’s ratification to promote his Tome as Church doctrine in the East.

Wrong. If the Tome had not been orthodox, the council would have shot it down. But then St Leo was orthodox at this time and so was Rome.

Why do you continue to attempt to twist history?

 

[Alethiaphile]

The council “had to approve it” in the sense that the Tome was undeniably orthodox,and the pope had authority over the council.

Those are two quite diffferent things. “Undeniably orthodox”- true, and the council recognized that. “Authority over the council”- only insofar as teh statement was “undeniably orthodox”. That gave Pope Leo his authority over the Council. Not his position as Pope. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

'I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles, the barque of Peter; I am the way, the truth and the life. They who are with me are with the Church; and they who are not with me are out of the Church. They are out of the way, the truth and the life.

Pope Pius IX

Oh man, I’d never heard that one before. I remember one of the ultramontane RC bishops at the time of VI said there were three incarnations of Christ: In a child at Bethelehem, in the consecrated elements at Mass, and in the Pope. Thank God the RC church has moved somewhat away from that. Joe

 

[steve_b]

'I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles, the barque of Peter; I am the way, the truth and the life. They who are with me are with the Church; and they who are not with me are out of the Church. They are out of the way, the truth and the life.
Pope Pius IX

Source please

 

[John214]

Hey Mickey,

However, my interest is now peaked. I am going to visit libraries and do some research to see if I might be able to get my hands on an original copy of the Keenan catechism.

That is great! I hope you can find it, and let us know what it says so that this matter can be cleared up.

God Bless,

John

 

[Mickey]

Source please

It is a reply to an address made to Pope Pius IX in the year 1866.

It is quoted from “The Guardian”, April 11, 1866.

 

[tdgesq]

It is a reply to an address made to Pope Pius IX in the year 1866.

It is quoted from “The Guardian”, April 11, 1866.

Just give us the link where you obtained the quote. That shouldn’t be difficult.

 

[Mickey]

Just give us the link

It is saved in my documents with the source as stated. But if you are an adventurous kinda guy I’m sure you will be able to find the interview in a library archive.
Good luck.

 

[steve_b]

It is a reply to an address made to Pope Pius IX in the year 1866.

It is quoted from “The Guardian”, April 11, 1866.

Did you mean to say made by Pope Pius IX?

I see where you’ve used this quote other times on CA as well.

I looked for the quote you posted. If it is an address by the pope, it should easily be available on more sources than “the Guardian” which BTW I wasn’t able to find… I found plenty of references on virulent anti Catholic websites.

I looked through Pius IX’s writings. Here they are in chronological order. So I checked everything prior to 1867. Still I couldn’t find the quote. Can you help me out here?

1. 
   *]Dives In Misericordia Deus (pdf format) November 16, 1877
   *]Graves Ac Diuturnae March 23, 1875
   *]Quod Nunquam February 5, 1875
   *]Gravibus Ecclesiae December 24, 1874
   *]Omnem Sollicitudinem May 13, 1874
   *]Vix Dum A Nobis March 7, 1874
   *]Etsi Multa November 21, 1873
   *]Quartus Supra January 6, 1873
   *]Quae In Patriarchatu November 16, 1872
   *]Saepe Venerabiles Fratres August 5, 1871
   *]Beneficia Dei June 4, 1871
   *]Ubi Nos May 15, 1871
   *]Respicientes November 1, 1870
   *]Levate October 27, 1867
   *]Meridionali Americae September 30, 1865
   *]Quanta Cura December 8, 1864
   *]Maximae Quidem August 18, 1864
   *]The Syllabus Of Errors 1864
   *]Incredibili September 17, 1863
   *]Quanto Conficiamur Moerore August 10, 1863
   *]Amantissimus April 8, 1862
   *]Nullis Certe Verbis January 19, 1860
   *]Qui Nuper June 18, 1859
   *]Cum Sancta Mater Ecclesia April 27, 1859
   *]Amantissimi Redemptoris May 3, 1858
   *]Cum Nuper January 20, 1858
   *]Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856
   *]Optime Noscitis November 5, 1855
   *]Ineffabilis Deus December 8, 1854 [Apostolic Constitution]
   *]Apostolicae Nostrae Caritatis August 1, 1854
   *]Optime Noscitis March 20, 1854
   *]Neminem Vestrum February 2, 1854
   *]Inter Multiplices March 21, 1853
   *]Probe Noscitis Venerabiles May 17, 1852
   *]Nemo Certe Ignorat March 25, 1852
   *]Exultavit Cor Nostrum November 21, 1851
   *]Nostis Et Nobiscum December 8, 1849
   *]Ubi Primum February 2, 1849
   *]Ubi Primum June 17, 1847
   *]Praedecessores Nostros March 25, 1847
   *]Qui Pluribus November 9, 1846