Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Ignatios]

mardukm:

So basically, your best argument is 1) simply claim certain documents don’t exist, and 2) appeal to a Synod of heretics to prove your point about Sardica.

I lost you on the above …could you please explain who is claiming certain documents dont exist ? and, who do you mean by saying appeal to a Synod of heretic to proove my point???

It is a fact that St. Maximos defended the memory of Pope Honorius,…

Defended or not …this is NOT part of our discussion, we are speaking about the documents of Saint Maximos what he had said in them ( if that is true)
Does a Council, Canons and Apostles has or say the words that were alleged that Saint Maximos said.
Where can we find or where and what are the Councils the Canons and the Apostles words, that Saint Maximos spoke about in his the so-called statement so we can reffrence them and make sure that what Saint Maximos said was not tampered with or forged.???

btw. And given the fact that even Ecumenical Councils can err in its condemnation of PERSONS (though it cannot err in its condemnation of bad doctrine)…

This is still Irrelevant to what we are talking about… but just to comment breifly…, if you are implying that the E.Council had made an error in the case of Pope Honorius then supply the evidence, otherwise please explain further to us what you meant by this sentence.

the statement from St. Maximos is certainly believable.

Since you are RC and you think that this strenthen your calim to Papal Supremacy I dont find it odd that you believe it blindly.

Keep in mind also that amidst the strong voices in the East against filioque, St. Maximos goes against the trend and is both ready and willing to ensure understanding of the position of the Latin Church.

Again Irrelevant…
BUT, to give a short respond, The Orthodox do not believe that there is one person on earth that he is infallibile, including the Saints, If you do beleive in that, you gonna find yourself quickly in trouble when we start talking about Thomas Aquinas and others and the many other issues, but we are not right now… so you are off the hook

I have never read this entire thread, but I am interested to investigate your comments on the patristic quotes from brother Anthony (as you say you have responded to them). I will do so this weekend.

Becarefull I might give you an exam. to see if you did or you were pulling my leg… just kidding you, Please do, and I am glad that you at least said that you would, BUT dont quit shortly after because it goes on passed the fourties at least (40s pages that is ) . have fun.

…You are obviously an intelligent person, so I assume you are aware of St. Maximos’ defense of the Latin understanding of filioque, AND his defense of Pope Honorius…

Which Latin understanding of the filioque? at what century? because things in your church kind of changes with times.

If Saint Maximos was alive at the time of the Council would he have accepted the Council deliberations or he would have sided with the Heretic Pope Honorius the First who had believe in what Saint Maximos was fighting against untill the last breath of his.???. ( that if those Latin fragments documents are authentic.)

If you were previously unaware of them, and you need citations, let me know (or perhaps someone else will be so kind as to direct you to them via links)

merduk. post them up for me and others. If I have them I will disregard them if not, then I have gained more info. and I will be thankfull to you
more information are very important especially those that are in contradiction with us.

Btw, what do you think of the possibility that St. Maximos was influenced by the Arabic Canons of Nicea in the statement attributed to him?

First you must ask, Are the so-called Arabic Canons Credible.?

 

[anthony022071]

[Ignatios]

Defended or not …this is NOT part of our discussion, we are speaking about the documents of Saint Maximos what he had said in them ( if that is true)
Does a Council, Canons and Apostles has or say the words that were alleged that Saint Maximos said.
Where can we find or where and what are the Councils the Canons and the Apostles words, that Saint Maximos spoke about in his the so-called statement so we can reffrence them and make sure that what Saint Maximos said was not tampered with or forged.???

Canon 28 of Chalcedon shows that Rome had jurisdiction over the East. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208250

Since you are RC and you think that this strenthen your calim to Papal Supremacy I dont find it odd that you believe it blindly.

He isn’t Roman Catholic. He describes himself as Orthodox in communion with Rome,and Coptic.

Which Latin understanding of the filioque? at what century? because things in your church kind of changes with times.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Ad Domnum Marinum Cypri presbyterum (Letter to the priest Marinus of Cyprus), PG 91, 134D-136C.

< “Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.’

“The other has to do with the divine incarnation, because he has written, ‘The Lord, as man, is without original sin.’

“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….

“The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them, whereas of the things of which the Byzantines have quite rightly been accused (viz., Monothelitism), they have, to date, made no self-defense, because neither have they gotten rid of the things introduced by them.

“But, in accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. One should also keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.” >

If Saint Maximos was alive at the time of the Council would he have accepted the Council deliberations or he would have sided with the Heretic Pope Honorius the First who had believe in what Saint Maximos was fighting against untill the last breath of his.???. ( that if those Latin fragments documents are authentic.)

That depends on whether he would have been convinced that Pope Honorius was actually a heretic.

First you must ask, Are the so-called Arabic Canons Credible.?

mwt.net/~lnpalm/jw_jpk.htm
< [Scott Butler informs me that the material he presented from the Arabic “Canons of Nicea” is also found, almost verbatim, in the ancient Armenian and Chaldean Nomocanons, the official collections of canon law for those ancient churches. These represent two more independent and Eastern witnesses to the pervasiveness of the perspective that the bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, holds the primacy in the early Church. He intends to present this evidence formally in the follow-up volume to JP&K.] >

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Ignatios writes:

Ignatios quotes:

Which Latin understanding of the filioque? at what century? because things in your church kind of changes with times.

Ignatios writes:
St. Maximus the Confessor, Ad Domnum Marinum Cypri presbyterum (Letter to the priest Marinus of Cyprus), PG 91, 134D-136C.
Ignatios quotes:

< “Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.’

In the Nicean Crede:

“qui ex Patre filioque procedit”

This Latin can, and could always be read ambiguously.
the prepositional particle “ex”, which takes the ablative case, has a multitude of possible meanings. I will quote my “Collins”.

ex, e* prep (with ablative) (place)* out of, from, down from; (person) from; (time) after, immediately after, since; (change) from being; (source, material) of; (cause) by reason of, through; (conformity) in accordance with; ex itinere on the march; ex parte in part; ex quo since; ex re, ex usu for the good of; ex re publica constituionally; ex sententia to one’s liking; aliud ex alio one thing after another; unus ex one of.

The Gospels clearly support the understanding of ‘by cause of’, as the Son intercedes with the Father to Send.
Thus both the Father and the Son are the Cause.
Clearly Niether are the source, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit pre-existed time, so no part of the Triune can source any other part, for the Triune was from the beginning.
My understanding is that the Orthodox understanding is one of cause, and not of source.
My understanding of the Latin is of cause, and not of source.
The problem is the poor English translation, which to be slavish to the Latin, lost the niceties of meaning, and thus completely misread the text.
These slavish translations must be understood in the Latin context, as a kind of pidjin, and not as definitive English.

 

[sambos671]

I suppose that depends upon how one defines church.

Ekklesia: “those called out” Assembly.

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

Canon 28 of Chalcedon shows that Rome had jurisdiction over the East. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208250

You Silly Goose.
This one, goes against your claim, for Papal supremacy, this is the one, that your pope Leo I, rejected and stood against it, Not to mention also this the same one that we had a long discussion before on this thread, and you people kept argueing against it (I Dont remember exactly, but I think you were arguing against it too),
If you RCs accept this Canon, Then we are more then half way in our reunion, and then I wouldnt mind consider the Pope to have the First Rank in Honor amongst the other Patriarchs and Pope.( the Pope of Alexandria that is)

BUT going back to our discussion, you havent present one single evidence yet, that the words of saint Maximos in those documents has a reffrence that it exist in a valid Holy Council that predate the time of his death … anthony trust me my friend there aint any, I have looked hard for this, but I am considering any valid reffrence. So now untill this valid evidence comes along,( If there is one that is) those documents are not authentic and therfore are dismissed as forgery and flawed.

He isn’t Roman Catholic. He describes himself as Orthodox in communion with Rome,and Coptic

The only ones who makes this claim formely are the Melkite Catholics, and his approach is not for sure NOT a Melkite, since the Melkite believe everything the Orthodox Church Teaches but they are in communion with Rome, where Mardukm, is clearly his beleive is not Orthodox, I go by what I Read my freind, if quack like a duck and walk like one fly like one look like one, then it is a Duck.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Ad Domnum Marinum Cypri presbyterum (Letter to the priest Marinus of Cyprus), PG 91, 134D-136C.

Shall I also, search the authenticity of this documents???
However, I shall allow my self to repeat what the Fathers said, that
"…Preserving all the respect due to this Father, we cannot refrain from noticing, that he was but a mortal man, and man, however great a degree of holiness he may attain, is very apt to err, especially on such subjects, which have not been examined before or determined upon in a general Council by the Fathers."if such was his idea “we must view the general doctrine of the Church, and take the Holy Scripture as a rule for ourselves, nor paying attention to what each has written in his private capacity (idia).”
Thats, if this was truly what he had said,

That depends on whether he would have been convinced that Pope Honorius was actually a heretic.

HHHMMMM why do you sound like you mistrust this E.Council. let me ask you do you beleive that this E.Council was wrong on finding and calling the Pope of Rome (Honorius I ) a Heretic.AND ANATHEMETIZING him as such.???

mwt.net/~lnpalm/jw_jpk.htm
< [Scott Butler informs me that the material he presented from the Arabic “Canons of Nicea” is also found, almost verbatim, in the ancient Armenian and Chaldean Nomocanons, the official collections of canon law for those ancient churches. These represent two more independent and Eastern witnesses to the pervasiveness of the perspective that the bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, holds the primacy in the early Church. He intends to present this evidence formally in the follow-up volume to JP&K.] >

Which of the Arabic Canons are you talking about, the Maronites ?.

“… Hefele says, “it is certain that the Orientals105105 Who exactly these Orientals were Hefele does not specify, but Ffoulkes well points out (Dict. Christ. Antiq. sub voce Councils of Nicæa) that it is an entire mistake to suppose that the Greek Church “ever quoted other canons [than the xx] as Nicene ‘by mistake,’ which were not Nicene, as popes Zosimus, Innocent and Leo did.” believed the Council of Nice to have promulgated more than twenty canons: the learned Anglican, Beveridge,106106 Beveridge, Synod. sive Pand. i. 686. has proved this, reproducing an ancient Arabic paraphrase of the canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils. According to this Arabic paraphrase, found in a ms. in the Bodleian Library, the Council of Nice must have put forth three books of canons.…The Arabic paraphrase of which we are speaking gives a paraphrase of all these canons, but Beveridge took only the part referring to the second book—that is to say, the paraphrase of the twenty genuine canons; for, according to his view, which was perfectly correct, it was only these twenty canons which were really the work of the Council of Nice, and all the others were falsely attributed to it.”107107 Hefele: Hist. Councils, I. 362.
Hefele goes on to prove that the canons he rejects must be of much later origin, some being laws of the times of Theodosius and Justinian according to the opinion of Renaudot.108…”

" Excursus on the Number of the Nicene Canons."

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/Page_43.html

Well I am off for now for a summer vacation, talk to you all when I come back. GOD bless you all †††

 

[Peter_J]

If you RCs accept this Canon, Then we are more then half way in our reunion,

Hmm … I think we might have to get back to you on that.

and then I wouldnt mind consider the Pope to have the First Rank in Honor amongst the other Patriarchs and Pope.( the Pope of Alexandria that is)

Don’t make have to roll my eyes at you!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

I lost you on the above …could you please explain who is claiming certain documents dont exist ? and, who do you mean by saying appeal to a Synod of heretic to proove my point???

Defended or not …this is NOT part of our discussion, we are speaking about the documents of Saint Maximos what he had said in them ( if that is true)
Does a Council, Canons and Apostles has or say the words that were alleged that Saint Maximos said.
Where can we find or where and what are the Councils the Canons and the Apostles words, that Saint Maximos spoke about in his the so-called statement so we can reffrence them and make sure that what Saint Maximos said was not tampered with or forged.???

This is still Irrelevant to what we are talking about… but just to comment breifly…, if you are implying that the E.Council had made an error in the case of Pope Honorius then supply the evidence, otherwise please explain further to us what you meant by this sentence.

Since you are RC and you think that this strenthen your calim to Papal Supremacy I dont find it odd that you believe it blindly.

Again Irrelevant…
BUT, to give a short respond, The Orthodox do not believe that there is one person on earth that he is infallibile, including the Saints, If you do beleive in that, you gonna find yourself quickly in trouble when we start talking about Thomas Aquinas and others and the many other issues, but we are not right now… so you are off the hook

Becarefull I might give you an exam. to see if you did or you were pulling my leg… just kidding you, Please do, and I am glad that you at least said that you would, BUT dont quit shortly after because it goes on passed the fourties at least (40s pages that is ) . have fun.

Which Latin understanding of the filioque? at what century? because things in your church kind of changes with times.

If Saint Maximos was alive at the time of the Council would he have accepted the Council deliberations or he would have sided with the Heretic Pope Honorius the First who had believe in what Saint Maximos was fighting against untill the last breath of his.???. ( that if those Latin fragments documents are authentic.)

merduk. post them up for me and others. If I have them I will disregard them if not, then I have gained more info. and I will be thankfull to you
more information are very important especially those that are in contradiction with us.

First you must ask, Are the so-called Arabic Canons Credible.?

I beg for your patience, for I will not be able to give a thorough response until next weekend. Thank you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

I do not think it was a good idea to start this thread. There is an arrogant mentality involved in it which severely lacks humility. If one is to be honest the Latin Communion has it’s own shortcomings which would hardly be acceptable to a Latin Catholic from a thousand years ago. There are too many unqualified people who are attempting to explain matters they do not understand.

I will leave you to ponder this page from the biography of Archbishop John Ireland:

Ireland’s treatment of another minority group, however, led directly to disastrous consequences for the Catholic church in the United States. Two weeks after writing the long report to Cardinal Gibbons about the Scandinavians, on December 19,1889, the archbishop of St. Paul gave an interview in his office to Father Alexis Georgievich Toth, recently arrived in the United States from his birthplace and the scene of his early priestly ministry in the Austro- Hungarian Empire. Toth, a learned man of thirty-six, was a Uniate- that is, he belonged to one of the non-Latin rites in union with the Roman See but distinctive in their liturgical languages and ecclesiastical custom. A group of Ruthenian Uniates had established their own parish earlier in the year in Northeast Minneapolis - where a good many eastern European immigrants had settled - and had called Father Toth to be their pastor.

The priest presented the archbishop his credentials. Ireland's hands trembled as he read them. Then he looked up, and said abruptly in Latin: "Have you a wife?"

“No,” Toth answered in the same language.
“But you had one?”
“Yes, I am a widower.”
Ireland tossed the documents on the desk in front of him. “I have already written to Rome protesting against this kind of priest being sent to me!”
"What kind of priest do you mean?’
“Your kind.”
“I am a Catholic priest of the Greek rite,” Toth protested. “I am a Uniate and was ordained by a regular Catholic bishop.”
“I do not consider that either you or this bishop of yours are Catholic; besides I do not need any Greek Catholic priests here; a Polish priest in Minneapolis is quite sufficient; the Greeks can also have him for their priest.”

This rude and testy reaction on Ireland's part was only the beginning of his vendetta against the Uniates. He immediately instructed the clergy in Northeast Minneapolis to have no association with Toth and, **furthermore, to state publicly from their pulpits that not even the Ruthenian Catholics were permitted to approach the Uniate priest for the sacraments**. Nor was the archbishop content to manifest his dislike within the limits of his own jurisdiction. In every national forum during succeeding years **he pressed for a general prohibition of Uniate activity**, and he carried his case directly to Propaganda. Father Toth, meantime, was not one to be intimidated; he carried on his ministry in the face of Ireland's hostility until 1891, when he and 365 of his parishioners, refusing in effect to be either Americanized or Latinized, were formally received into the Russian Orthodox church. What started as a trickle in Minnesota soon swelled into a vast wave of schism all around the country, costing the Roman church, by conservative estimates, a quarter of a mllion communicants.

**Ireland's bias against the Uniates was by no means unique; his episcopal colleagues, Americanist and anti-Americanist alike, shared it, or at least condoned it and thereby participated in causing the massive exodus to the Orthodox Church**.

Page 269, John Ireland and the American Catholic Church by Marvin O’Connell

 

[bluejesuit]

You also have to mention that** only Peter was given the keys **of the kingdom of heaven and it was not given to the rest of the Apostles. Eastern Orthodoxy held their authority on the synods of bishops.

Maybe the other bishops were jealous of the Bishop of Rome?
Oh, how jealousy destroys what Jesus said. Thou art Peter, The keys of heaven, Bound on earth bound in heaven, lose on earth lose in heaven, etc.

 

[bluejesuit]

The funeral service of the Orthodox Church contains the following prayer, which refutes what you just stated:

“Greatly merciful Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ our God, Who after Your holy, third day resurrection from the dead gave to Your holy Disciples and Apostles the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and also the authority of Your Grace both to bind and to loose the sins of men, so that bound in Heaven would be whatsoever things through them might be bound on earth, and likewise loosed in Heaven whatsoever things; through them might be loosed; and gave also that as their successors, we, Your deficient and unworthy servants, should have, by Your unutterable and manbefriending love, this same exceedingly holy Gift and Grace from You, so that we in like manner should both bind and loose the things that happen to be done among Your people.”

This prayer was not a Post-Schism liturgical innovation and is in fact used also by Eastern Catholic Churches. Ergo, your claim that only St. Peter held the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven is a false belief that is contradicted even in the casual prayers of the ancient Church. This doesn’t help the claims of your Church to be the true, unchanging Church of Christ.

God bless,

Adam

Hmm. In my opinion. Please don’t bash me, I’m a newbie. Ha ha. Because at that time, Peter and the rest of the bishops were one. That’s why the keys are with them because Peter holds the key and he is with them.

Now that EO is not with Peter, then they lost track of the key right?

 

[natsclem]

Regarding Dissimulate,

In either case, it seems Peter had “led others astray” by what he was telling them to do, whether or not it is based upon his disguising himself or not. Jerome did not seem to disagree with this, he simply said Paul was too harsh in that Paul was also guilty of the same. It seems we haven’t cleared up this issue yet.

John

Peter’s shortcoming is in failing to reinforce by action what he stood up for in the Council of Jerusalem because of fear of men–making him hypocrite, meaning that what he did (behavior) was not according to what he believed and declared. Peter did not tell them anything to led them astray. He simply lacked the nerve to back up by his behavior what he declared in the Council.

In Galatians 2:11-13

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

This has nothing to do with the dogma of infallibility. Peter and his successors despite Christ’s gift of infallibility are not immune from committing error in their personal and private capacity. They can also commit sin. Also, Peter and his successors’ weaknesses do not negate their being the Vicar of Christ, endowed with supreme authority and universal jurisdiction in the Church. Who are we to question the divine will of Christ to appoint Peter (and consequently his successors until the end of time) whom we know that Christ knew of his weaknesses, especially his three-time denial? And yet, Peter was appointed to be the rock upon which He would build His Church. God’s ways are not our ways.

If you are interested on the Church’ teaching on infallibility:

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IV

 

[natsclem]

Maybe the other bishops were jealous of the Bishop of Rome?
Oh, how jealousy destroys what Jesus said. Thou art Peter, The keys of heaven, Bound on earth bound in heaven, lose on earth lose in heaven, etc.

Reading the history of schisms, the only culprit of divisions in the church is disobedience born of the marriage of jealousy and pride. Doctrinal questions serve only to justify divisions and schisms…

 

[bluejesuit]

Reading the history of schisms, the only culprit of divisions in the church is disobedience born of the marriage of jealousy and pride. Doctrinal questions serve only to justify divisions and schisms…

Agreed. Well, if Jesus wanted to build His Church around Peter, then no one could object. If you want the building to be yours, then better be the architect of your own structure. That’s what Orthodoxy is doing isn’t it?

Instead of letting that thought creep in, better build the body of Christ as a united Catholic Church. The protestants are growing, we can’t just sit here and let the Church of Christ be a witness to a mass “going astray” of our brothers and sisters.

 

[natsclem]

Instead of letting that thought creep in, better build the body of Christ as a united Catholic Church. The protestants are growing, we can’t just sit here and let the Church of Christ be a witness to a mass “going astray” of our brothers and sisters.

The mass exodus of many of our brethren is upon the shoulder of the shepherds just as the mass return is also upon them. Like Mar Bawai; he brought with him many of his sheep back to the fold. What can we do other than to be good witnesses of the Faith? Personally, I’m in predicament as my own brother was led astray by a local religious group whose belief is Arian. He doesn’t think he is led astray. Similarly, an Orthodox who persists in his being an Orthodox doest not believe of being led astray. I think what we can do is bring them up to the Lord’s generous mercy–better than confronting them.

 

[Peter_J]

I do not think it was a good idea to start this thread. There is an arrogant mentality involved in it which severely lacks humility.

I just now re-read the opening post of this thread, and I don’t see there an attempt to take cheap shots at the Orthodox, but just an effort to understand. Plus let’s not forget that the opening poster is not Catholic but Protestant.

If one is to be honest the Latin Communion has it’s own shortcomings which would hardly be acceptable to a Latin Catholic from a thousand years ago. There are too many unqualified people who are attempting to explain matters they do not understand.

I will leave you to ponder this page from the biography of Archbishop John Ireland:

Ireland’s treatment of another minority group, however, led directly to disastrous consequences for the Catholic church in the United States. Two weeks after writing the long report to Cardinal Gibbons about the Scandinavians, on December 19,1889, the archbishop of St. Paul gave an interview in his office to Father Alexis Georgievich Toth, recently arrived in the United States from his birthplace and the scene of his early priestly ministry in the Austro- Hungarian Empire. Toth, a learned man of thirty-six, was a Uniate- that is, he belonged to one of the non-Latin rites in union with the Roman See but distinctive in their liturgical languages and ecclesiastical custom. A group of Ruthenian Uniates had established their own parish earlier in the year in Northeast Minneapolis - where a good many eastern European immigrants had settled - and had called Father Toth to be their pastor.

 The priest presented the archbishop his credentials. Ireland's hands trembled as he read them. Then he looked up, and said abruptly in Latin: "Have you a wife?"

“No,” Toth answered in the same language.
“But you had one?”
“Yes, I am a widower.”
Ireland tossed the documents on the desk in front of him. “I have already written to Rome protesting against this kind of priest being sent to me!”
"What kind of priest do you mean?’
“Your kind.”
“I am a Catholic priest of the Greek rite,” Toth protested. “I am a Uniate and was ordained by a regular Catholic bishop.”
“I do not consider that either you or this bishop of yours are Catholic; besides I do not need any Greek Catholic priests here; a Polish priest in Minneapolis is quite sufficient; the Greeks can also have him for their priest.”

 This rude and testy reaction on Ireland's part was only the beginning of his vendetta against the Uniates. He immediately instructed the clergy in Northeast Minneapolis to have no association with Toth and, furthermore, to state publicly from their pulpits that not even the Ruthenian Catholics were permitted to approach the Uniate priest for the sacraments. Nor was the archbishop content to manifest his dislike within the limits of his own jurisdiction. In every national forum during succeeding years he pressed for a general prohibition of Uniate activity, and he carried his case directly to Propaganda. Father Toth, meantime, was not one to be intimidated; he carried on his ministry in the face of Ireland's hostility until 1891, when he and 365 of his parishioners, refusing in effect to be either Americanized or Latinized, were formally received into the Russian Orthodox church. What started as a trickle in Minnesota soon swelled into a vast wave of schism all around the country, costing the Roman church, by conservative estimates, a quarter of a mllion communicants.

Ireland’s bias against the Uniates was by no means unique; his episcopal colleagues, Americanist and anti-Americanist alike, shared it, or at least condoned it and thereby participated in causing the massive exodus to the Orthodox Church.

Good point. See also ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=302530&Pg=Forum25&Pgnu=1&recnu=9

Concerning the last statement (“Ireland’s bias against the Uniates was by no means unique; his episcopal colleagues, Americanist and anti-Americanist alike, shared it, or at least condoned it and thereby participated in causing the massive exodus to the Orthodox Church.”) I would just add that the American archbishops (not Archbishop Ireland alone) resolved, in 1893,

“… that the presence of married priests of the Greek Rite in our midst is a constant menace to the chastity of our unmarried clergy, a source of scandal to the laity and therefore the sooner this point of discipline is abolished before these evils obtain large proportions, the better for religion, because the possible loss of a few souls of the Greek Rite bears no proportion to the blessings resulting from uniformity of discipline.”

(See cin.org/clash7.html )

P.S. Incidentally (and not meaning to get off-topic here) if I get a chance someday I’d like to ask people in the SSPX, SSPV, etc., whether they want us to return to Archbishop Ireland’s mode of operation.

 

[Brandon1985]

Ok, I am an Anglo-Catholic, in America that is the Episcopal church (though I have separated my self from that church due to ordination of women and homosexuals). First all, our apostolic succession is just as valid as Rome’s because it came from Rome. Now on to the topic at hand, my roommate is a Russian Orthodox Christian and I know that one fault that they have is they are pompous jerks. They feel that they are the only valid Christians, then turn around after scoffing all other priest hoods say “we only know where the church is (them) not where it isn’t (everyone else)” The problem with that is that we Catholics (Anglican and Roman) know we are the true church. There problem is that they are so thick headed they even wrote history differently than we do, they say that the Roman Empire is the same as the Byzantine Empire, and the Russians even go so far as to say that the Russian Empire is the same as the Byzantine Empire. They also say that when the Emperor “moved” to Constantinople that he took the Bishop of Rome with him. Ok, obviously the seat of Peter can move because it has before but why would the Emperor move a bishop to Constantinople if there is already a bishop there? So that’s how they make the claim that the Pope isn’t the first among equals. Now papal infallibility is something we (Anglicans) agree with them about, its obvious that Christ made Peter the foundation of the church but as some one has already pointed out he was rebuked by many including James, and by Paul. So in other words the Pope’s word should carry more weight than any other but its not infallible. So, I believe that the major problem here is the great schism, where Orthodoxy left Rome for what ever reason (I assume from pressure by the Byzantine empire) so no longer had the whole church and started to hate her sister and then once Rome was all alone she no longer had the guidance of all the patriarchs of the church lost her way. The real shame in all of it is that both churches are valid and should reunite but are to hard headed to do so. We Anglicans wish that would happen because we have lost our way after leaving Rome but can’t rejoin because of issues where we can see Rome has strayed such as Papal infallibility (also our priesthood really like there wives). So it is our daily prayer in Anglicanism that both churches reunite and become what the lord wanted again so we can come home, Rome is our Beacon but the candle is blown out through separation of the church.

 

[Hesychios]

The mass exodus of many of our brethren is upon the shoulder of the shepherds just as the mass return is also upon them. Like Mar Bawai; he brought with him many …

Mar Bawai led about 4,000 or 5,000 individuals into obedience to the Pope, information is a bit sketchy as to numbers. That might represent half a modern RC parish in size.

He was under discipline in his own church and his faculties as a bishop were suspended, after refusing an assignment to Iran. (Of course, the assignment was a punishment for his complaining about a church scandal, probably to shut him up.) It appears that they tried to take the property with them (based in the western USA), but they lost their temples/church buildings in court to the Church of the East diocese and it’s new bishop.

His action of jumping to Rome (possibly prematurely, inspired by his personal situation) seriously damaged relations and dialog between Rome and the Church of the East with it’s patriarch and synod of bishops, so there will not likely be many more Assyrian Christians moving from that direction in our lifetimes.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I do not like the accusations made by one branch of the vine against another.
Our Lord plainly said that whosoever shall speak falsehoods against the Son of Man shall be forgiven, provided that he does not speak falsehoods against the Holy Spirit, in which case, he will not.
According to that judgement, even the Muslims would be classed as being of Our Lord, for they accept him as Messiah, and above the angels. That places them far closer to the vine, if not part of he vine, which the Jews reject.
As for the petty quarrels between the branches of what is clearly a single vine, and the attempt by some to rend it asunder, this is what needs to be condemned.
We need to build bridges to join us, but the bridges need to be sufficiently flexible to allow a little movement without rending the structure.
Certain people fasten far too much importance to details based on ‘tradition’, and to little to charity.
It was once said, I hope in jest, that of the people of Northern Ireland, there were 33% Catholic, 66% Protestant, and 1% Christian.
Let those who stand in judgement remember what Our Lord said of them:
By what measure you judge, you will be judged.
My sins are many!
I cannot afford to be judged.
Can you judges afford the judgement you cry out for?
Pax vobiscum!

 

[Formosus]

Ok, I am an Anglo-Catholic, in America that is the Episcopal church (though I have separated my self from that church due to ordination of women and homosexuals). First all, our apostolic succession is just as valid as Rome’s because it came from Rome. Now on to the topic at hand, my roommate is a Russian Orthodox Christian and I know that one fault that they have is they are pompous jerks. They feel that they are the only valid Christians, then turn around after scoffing all other priest hoods say “we only know where the church is (them) not where it isn’t (everyone else)” The problem with that is that we Catholics (Anglican and Roman) know we are the true church.

So you are claiming the Russian Orthodox are “pompous jerks” when you are making the exact same claim as they are making?

There problem is that they are so thick headed they even wrote history differently than we do, they say that the Roman Empire is the same as the Byzantine Empire,

Perhaps you should read some modern historians on this subject. I think you will find that their opinion lines up fairly well with modern historical research.

and the Russians even go so far as to say that the Russian Empire is the same as the Byzantine Empire.

This on the other hand is just a bit of hubris/nationalistic pride. Its not all that different then the Catholic Church claiming that the (former) Holy Roman Empire was the same as the Roman Empire. So again, this is something the west has claimed before. IMO even the Russian Empire had a stronger connection to Byzantium then the HRE ever had to the actual Roman Empire. But these are issues of political history, not really related to theology or doctrine.

They also say that when the Emperor “moved” to Constantinople that he took the Bishop of Rome with him. Ok, obviously the seat of Peter can move because it has before but why would the Emperor move a bishop to Constantinople if there is already a bishop there? So that’s how they make the claim that the Pope isn’t the first among equals.

On this point, your friend is just mistaken. The Bishop of Rome stayed in Rome. The Bishop of Constantinople was raised to second place behind the Bishop of Rome by the III and IV councils.

Now papal infallibility is something we (Anglicans) agree with them about, its obvious that Christ made Peter the foundation of the church but as some one has already pointed out he was rebuked by many including James, and by Paul. So in other words the Pope’s word should carry more weight than any other but its not infallible. So, I believe that the major problem here is the great schism, where Orthodoxy left Rome for what ever reason (I assume from pressure by the Byzantine empire)

The Patriarch removed the Pope from the Diptychs for several reasons that could have been settled had Rome been interested in talking about it. (Mostly ecclesiology issues). Rather in 1054 Cardinal Humbert came and slammed an excommunication down on the Altar of the Agia Sophia that made outlandish claims(like that the clergy were eunuchs) and accused the Byzantines of removing the Filioque clause from the Creed(!). The schism was not cemented yet until the 4th crusade where the Latin crusaders decided to get themselves involved with local politics rather then going to fight Islam in the Holy Land. If you read the history, you would see that the Emperors usually seemed more interested in reuniting the Church then the Church officials did. So actually it is the opposite, pressure from the Empire was to reunite.

so no longer had the whole church and started to hate her sister and then once Rome was all alone she no longer had the guidance of all the patriarchs of the church lost her way. The real shame in all of it is that both churches are valid and should reunite but are to hard headed to do so. We Anglicans wish that would happen because we have lost our way after leaving Rome but can’t rejoin because of issues where we can see Rome has strayed such as Papal infallibility (also our priesthood really like there wives). So it is our daily prayer in Anglicanism that both churches reunite and become what the lord wanted again so we can come home, Rome is our Beacon but the candle is blown out through separation of the church.

Well I agree with this. The Roman Church lost the ecclesiology of the patristic church and became unbalanced with too much emphasis on the Church at the universal level at the expense of the Church at other levels (like local). The Orthodox have lost much of a sense of Church at the universal level. The two lungs (east and west) are necessary for a balanced Church governance, and so it is of the utmost importance that the Church work to bring about reunion with the Orthodox.

 

[Ignatius]

So the question is, “Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church False”? This is what the RCC states

You are wrong on both counts. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not false and The Catholic Church does not say they are.