Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[anthony022071]

[Mickey]

Yes. She was Orthodox for about the first 1000 years.

And who decided that she was no longer orthodox in her faith? The most fallible Church of Constantinople.

 

[Mickey]

And who decided that she was no longer orthodox in her faith?

I’ll let you mull that one over.

 

[anthony022071]

Mickey:

I’ll let you mull that one over.

It was Photios who first claimed that the doctrine of the filioque was not unorthodox. And the clergy of Constantinople followed him in that opinion.

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

They serve the Lord by doing things that Christ established the priesthood to do,things that he did,until he comes again. So practically speaking,they do take his place.

Practicly speaking, well, I may go along with this word, as long as it does not go beyond “practicly speaking” or “metaphoricaly speaking” and becomes a “DOGMA”.

Pope Leo claimed to have universal jurisdiction and infallibility,and authority over an ecumenical council;and yet he is a saint in the Orthodox Church.

Irrelevant to what you have mentioned before in which you said the following:
by anthony earlier:

The Eastern clergy knew the pope always had to have the orthodox faith,because the pope was the successor to Peter the Rock and had Peter’s universal ministry and because Christ promised Peter that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church…

My answer was relevant to what you have posted in the above earlier.
As for what Pope Leo said, obviously the Orthodox Fathers disregarded it. and that by passing the 28th Canon dispite his objection to it.
True he is saint in the Orthodox Church .

“Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others . . . the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head.”
(Letter to Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica, c.446 A.D., 14:11; in Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, p. 270)

hhhhmmmm… could be the Pentarchy?
And the See of saint Peter…could be Antioch Or maybe Rome, Alexandria and Antioch as Pope Gregory the Great said.

"From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church . . . Peter . . . rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler. Divine condescension…

For the sake of time I am not going to reaserch this one, since you have shown in your past posts that you used some distorted quotes, so I am going to take this one “as is”. the Red text would annul your claim to Peter in the place of JESUS, See it says that JESUS is over them all.

Again you are stepping all over yourself with all those quotes.

TO THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRUS, ON PERSEVERANCE IN THE FAITH.
“Wherefore we make our boast in the LORD, singing with the prophet: “our help is in the name of the LORD, who hath made heaven and earth:” who has suffered us to sustain no harm in the person of our brethren, but has corroborated by the irrevocable assent of the whole brotherhood what He had already laid down through our ministry: to show that, what had been first formulated by the foremost See of Christendom, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, had truly proceeded from Himself: that in this, too, the members may be at one with the Head.”

Dont see anything that would support your claim.

And yet he was not condemned for teaching a heretical doctrine.
So Honorius was proved to be infallible,according to the standard of Vatican 1.

The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”
Thank you again Mickey.

However, there is enough proof in the above from Mickey that the Orthodox Fathers did not See the Pope as you have said earlier in your post that " The Eastern clergy knew the pope always had to have the orthodox faith…"

As they say anthony, you can run but you cant hide

 

[anthony022071]

[Ignatios]

True he is saint in the Orthodox Church.

An Orthodox saint with somewhat peculiar views.

“The Son is the Only-begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit
is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, not as any
creature, which also is of the Father and of the Son, but as
living and having power with both, and eternally subsisting of that which is the Father and the Son.” (Sermons 75:3)

“And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begot were not one, He who was begotten, another, and He who proceeded from both, yet another; but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, indeed, but not consisting of three persons.” (To Turribius, Epistle 15)

And Gregory the Great also.

“The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son…the Redeemer imparted to the hearts of His disciples the Spirit who proceeds from Himself.” (Moral Teachings drawn from Job, 1:22,2:92)

“Our Lord … shews how the Spirit of Both so proceeds as to be coeternal with Both…He who is produced by procession is not posterior in time to those by whom He is put forth.” (Moral Teachings drawn from Job, 25:4)

 

[Mickey]

It was Photios who first claimed that the doctrine of the filioque was not unorthodox.

Correction: St Photios proclaimed that the odd doctrine of the Filioque** was** unorthodox. And many great and holy saints of the Church agreed with him. As a matter of fact–the Great Councils knew of no such thing as the filioque.

 

[anthony022071]

[Mickey]

Correction: St Photios proclaimed that the odd doctrine of the Filioque** was** unorthodox.

My mistake. I meant to say “not orthodox”.

And many great and holy saints of the Church agreed with him. As a matter of fact–the Great Councils knew of no such thing as the filioque.

Only the post-schism Orthodox saints agreed with him. The Council of Nicea II did know of the filioque,and Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople made his profession of faith to the Romans with the words: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, proceeding from the Father through the Son” (Nicaea II, Profession of Faith, Mansi 13.760 [A.D. 787]).

 

[Mickey]

Only the post-schism Orthodox saints agreed with him. The Council of Nicea II did know of the filioque,and they came up with a compromise. “In the Holy Spirit, Lord and giver of Life, proceeding from the Father through the Son.” Council of Nicea II (A.D. 787).

Through/And are two different words–regardless of how the RCC tries to spin it.

But I was not aware that the Creed had been re-worded in the way you depict above? Do you have a link?

At St Peter’s square, it still reads “Who proceeds from the Father.”

 

[anthony022071]

[Ignatios]

As for what Pope Leo said, obviously the Orthodox Fathers disregarded it.

Orthodox Fathers? There was no Orthodox Church at that time.
The fathers of the council did not disregard Leo’s authority over them.

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

“For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him …Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will”. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

“For you showed us benevolence in presiding over us in the persons of those who held your place *, as the head over the members”.
(Chalcedon to St. Leo. Ep. xcviii, PL. liv, 951. Mansi vi, 147)

“Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness.” – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

“You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the Church of Constantinople.” – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

“Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision [canon 28] by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.” – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

hhhhmmmm… could be the Pentarchy?
And the See of saint Peter…could be Antioch Or maybe Rome, Alexandria and Antioch as Pope Gregory the Great said.

The pope was obviously talking about his own see. None of the Church Fathers said that Antioch had the care for the whole Church. The only time Antioch was the center of the Church was when Peter himself was there. The vast majority of patristic references to the See of Peter or the Chair of Peter refer to Rome.

For the sake of time I am not going to reaserch this one, since you have shown in your past posts that you used some distorted quotes, so I am going to take this one “as is”. the Red text would annul your claim to Peter in the place of JESUS, See it says that JESUS is over

them all.

And Peter is the earthly Head of the priesthood.*

 

[anthony022071]

[Mickey]

Through/And are two different words–regardless of how the RCC tries to spin it.

Same eternal procession.

But I was not aware that the Creed had been re-worded in the way you depict above? Do you have a link?

From the close of this article.
catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html
< The first recorded conflict between Romans and Byzantines over the doctrine of Filioque occurred in about A.D. 650 when Pope St. Martin I issued a decree against Monothelitism to the Byzantine court. This Papal decree included an expression of faith conveying a poorly-worded Greek translation of Filioque, in which the term “ekporeusis” was used. The Byzantines correctly objected to this Greek expression, and St. Maximos the Confessor interceded for the Romans and explained what they really meant –that is, what the doctrine of Filioque really referred to. This evidently satisfied the Byzantines of this time, since no further objections were voiced by them, nor did Filioque become an issue at the Council of Constantinople III (A.D. 680), which condemned Monothelitism, and even posthumously anathematized a Roman Pope! Funny enough, in the very same year (680), a council of English bishops at Hatfield, presided over by Archbishop St. Theodore of Canterbury –a Byzantine appointed a decade earlier by Pope St. Vitalian –declared that the Holy Spirit “proceeds in an ineffable way from the Father and the Son.” (Bede the Venerable, Hist. Eccl. Gent. Angl. 4.15 [17]). If Filioque is an error serious enough to divide the Churches today, why was it tolerated (and sometimes even professed) by Byzantines of the 7th Century?
In the following century, the Iconoclast controversy once again alienated Rome from Byzantium. But, through all this time, no Byzantine (whether Iconoclast or Orthodox) voiced any objection against Rome’s Filioquist beliefs. Indeed, at the time of the unifying Council of Nicaea II (A.D. 787), Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople is recorded making the following profession of faith to the Romans:
“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, proceeding from the Father through the Son” (Nicaea II, Profession of Faith, Mansi 13.760 [A.D. 787]).
This was clearly intended to be an ecumenical “nod” to the Western profession of Filioque. Thus, so far, the treatment of the issue is a thoroughly tolerant one. >

 

[Mickey]

Same eternal procession.

Nope.

Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople is recorded making the following profession of faith to the Romans:
“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, proceeding from the Father through the Son” (Nicaea II, Profession of Faith, Mansi 13.760 [A.D. 787]).
This was clearly intended to be an ecumenical “nod” to the Western profession of Filioque. Thus, so far, the treatment of the issue is a thoroughly tolerant one.

It was the words of the Patriarch “intended to be an Ecumenical nod”.

Obviously not even this gesture was accepted.

Nice try Tony!

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Nope.

Yes.

Wow we are getting far with this dialogue!

 

[anthony022071]

[Mickey]

It was the words of the Patriarch “intended to be an Ecumenical nod”.

Obviously not even this gesture was accepted.

Who didn’t accept it? Nicaea II is considered an ecumenical council by the Orthodox – and yet the patriarch of Constantinople professed a different creed than that of Constantinople 1. Oh,the heresy!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Through/And are two different words–regardless of how the RCC tries to spin it.

But I was not aware that the Creed had been re-worded in the way you depict above? Do you have a link?

At St Peter’s square, it still reads “Who proceeds from the Father.”

ex patre filioque

ex PREP ABL
ex PREP ABL [XXXAX]
out of, from; by reason of; according to; because of, as a result of;

patr.e N 3 1 ABL S M
pater, patris N M [XXXAX]
father; [pater familias, patris familias => head of family/household];
Two words
May be 2 words combined (filio+que) If not obvious, probably incorrect
fili.o N 2 5 DAT S M
fili.o N 2 5 ABL S M
filius, fili N M [XXXAX]
son;

que CONJ
que CONJ [FXXET] Medieval uncommon
and; (while properly attached as enclitic sometimes copyists make mistakes);

Note: ‘ex’ followed by ablative:
out of, from; by reason of; according to; because of, as a result of.
The simplistic translation is not the only possible translation, and is probably incorrect, as it conflicts with the Gospels.
Translating as causality of both parties, as implied by the enclitic suffix ‘que’, affixed to ‘filio’, implies that the sense in both cases is the same, ie causality, for from the Gospels, causality is given to Our Lord, and by intercession also to the Father.
Sourceship may be applicable to the Father, however, the Gospels do not imply that the Father is the source of the Holy Spirit, indeed, what is implied is that all three are co-eternal.

 

[Mickey]

ex patre filioqueex PREP ABL
ex PREP ABL [XXXAX] out of, from; by reason of; according to; because of, as a result of;patr.e N 3 1 ABL S M pater, patris N M [XXXAX]
father; [pater familias, patris familias => head of family/household];Two words May be 2 words combined (filio+que) If not obvious, probably ncorrectfili.o N 2 5 DAT S M fili.o N 2 5 ABL S M filius, fili N M [XXXAX] son;que CONJ que CONJ [FXXET] Medieval uncommon
and; (while properly attached as enclitic sometimes copyists make mistakes);Note: ‘ex’ followed by ablative:
out of, from; by reason of; according to; because of, as a result of.The simplistic translation is not the only possible translation, and is probably incorrect, as it conflicts with the Gospels.
Translating as causality of both parties, as implied by the enclitic suffix ‘que’, affixed to ‘filio’, implies that the sense in both cases is the same, ie causality, for from the Gospels, causality is given to Our Lord, and by intercession also to the Father.
Sourceship may be applicable to the Father, however, the Gospels do not imply that the Father is the source of the Holy Spirit, indeed, what is implied is that all three are co-eternal.

Whatever you say voco. :whacky:

 

[Mickey]

Nicaea II is considered an ecumenical council by the Orthodox

Those were not the words of the council. It was an Ecumenical gesture (comment) by the Patriarch. Can you show me where the language is in the canons of the this council?

 

[Ignatios]

steve b:

The claim doesn’t fall short. Peter inquired if John would be martyred also.

Of course it does, you claim that Peter is in the place of (Replace the LORD) the LORD (Dogmatically), and Here Jesus telling Saint Peter when he inquired about Saint John,( In which this would be one of his duty IF he was as you claimed ) “What is it to thee” or in another words" None of your business", this hardly suggest that Peter is incharge over the other Apostles.

In 21st century English, Peter, who loved John, out of concern, was asking Jesus if John would be martyred too. Jesus said to Peter, don’t worry about how/when John will die.

Mickey again answered you right…>>>Or in other words:

“That is none of your business”.

---

Mickey
ChaldeanRite:

… You said it, not me. Be careful, you might get what you wish for.

Typical RC way of in attempt to alter the context to what they want it to be, you left out the rest of it, here is what I said with in context>>>And as for the" being smart part and wear the Scapular…" if this what samrt is, …loool… then I would rather be a stupid than being of that kind of smart

In another words wearing the scapular:bigyikes: is not smart, but to be nice I said (in aother word that is) if believing the fallacy of the Dogma of the Purgatory is smart, then I would rather be stupid and not give in to such innovation that would lead me away from GOD and lock me in a man made traditions. you get my drift??? I guess not.

Lies.

Lies???!!!:tsktsk:

Lies. Stop painting Catholic teaching in the dim light in which you want to see it. Your comments are a fallacy in nature and your indigent understanding of Catholicism is ever apparent. Remember, you will have to give an account to your words in this side of eternity so choose them wisely brother.

1. Calling my quotes lies, but never put forth anything to explain why and how they are lies, therfore your words lacks the truth.
2. What I have mentioned about your Pope and your indulgences are not my own words nor comments, those where YOUR church Teachings, therfore, you have applied the word lies to your church teaching, since, again those were your church teachings and not mine, and such word as the one you mentioned(Lies that is) was attributed by you to your own church “SMART”.

Here is my evidence concerning what I said that this "Fallacy"you spoke of was from your church and not mine.

lets go first to the catechumen of the Catholic Church…

1)1471 What is an indulgence?

“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.”
PUNISH SINS THAT ARE FORGIVEN???

“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.” The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.

1. 1498 Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory
2. 1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.

Now here is where my words in an earlier post came from>>>

1. …St. Peter and his successors, may also remit the temporal punishments, analogous to the pardoning power given to secular officials. Thus, the full power to grant indulgences resides with the pope, who has full power of jurisdiction in the Church. This power is shared, by the measure of the pope’s disposition, with the bishops of the Church19 and to those to whom this is expressly conceded by law.20
2. …These Christians, seeking to imitate Christ, agreed. To verify the agreement, a slip of paper or other indicia was given to the penitent…

for 5&6 look in this link>>>catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/0910-96/article9.html

1. , The Pope has the plenitude of pontifical power, being like a king in his kingdom … Hence them alone the Pope, in his letters, addresses as “brethren,” whereas he calls all others his “sons.” Therefore the plenitude of the power of granting indulgences resides in the Pope, because he can grant them.

And here is the proof from another RC link “THEEE NEWADVENT”
newadvent.org/summa/5026.htm

Have a nice day !!! smart:tiphat:

 

[tdgesq]

Read the decrees of your own councils Ignatios:

DECREE XVIII.

We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment, nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved <151> itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation forsooth.

And such as though envolved in mortal sins have not departed in despair, but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance — by pouring forth tears, forsooth, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine {in summation ELC} by shewing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbour, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — of these and such like the souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers <152> of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing in the highest degree; which each offereth particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offereth daily for all alike; it being, of course, understood that we know not the time of their release. For that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment we know and believe; but when we know not. catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

Aren’t the attacks on purgatory just a another way for certain Orthodox to justify schism, in contradiction of the teachings of their own fathers?

 

[steve_b]

and Here Jesus telling Saint Peter when he inquired about Saint John,( In which this would be one of his duty IF he was as you claimed ) “What is it to thee” or in another words" None of your business", this hardly suggest that Peter is incharge over the other Apostles.

How is Peter asking Our Lord for an answer out of bounds? Where does it say in scripture Peter will never have to ask God for anything? You’ve lost your sense of balance, my friend.
Ig:

Mickey again answered you right…>>>Or in other words:

“That is none of your business”.

For a more objective view,

When Mary mentioned to Jesus at Cana, that they were out of wine, do you think Jesus response to her amounted to “this is none of your business”?

I don’t think so. And neither was it the response to Peter with his question.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

we can start by stating that the true church must be apostolic. meaning there must be a line of succession of bishops going back to the apostles. next we can say that the five sees of rome, antioch, jerusalem, constantinople and alexandria are of greater importance than other sees.

but what happens when one see disagrees with the other see? if alexandria disagrees with constantinople, who’s to say who is right? what happens when a particular see rejects a ecumenical council?

this is why there needs to be one see of unity and universal authority in the church. otherwise, the oriental orthdox and the eastern orthodox would have equally valid claims to being the one true church.

only in the catholic church do we have the fullest expression of universality and diversity. only in the catholic church do we find a visible head here on earth of the body of Christ.