Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Isa_Almisry]

While obviously each of the Twelve (and consequently all bishops) had authority, Peter had (and consequently the Bishop of Rome has) something the others did not. Like the “rock” in Mt.16:18, the keys, binding and loosing can have multiple true meanings. If I’m not mistaken the Orthodox restrict these to forgiveness of sins while Catholics interpret it as authority and jurisdiction. Thus I think Catholics have a richer and fuller understanding of these matters.

Look up Office of the Keys at New Advent, where they admit that the Fathers rarely mentioned the idea of authority and jurisdiction when citing this verse.

Btw, look at Rev. 22:18 for getting a “richer and fuller understanding” of these matters.

 

[John214]

Hesychios,

Thanks for your post! If I could respond I would say that most of the official RCC/EO representatives I have spoken with (i.e. priests) have said that the one has the ‘fullness of the truth’ and the other has a ‘part of the truth’. Surely you would not assume that I could jump back and forth between the RCC and EO churches each year, deciding I prefered the other one? Indeed it is very difficult to make a statement that has absolutely no truth in it!

Still, one of the two has the fullness of the truth, I suppose I could have restated the question to be, “Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church less true than the RCC?” But as far as I can see, such a description does not really exist.

Suppose I said that the U.S. Government was based on three branches, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Conspiracy branches. Well my statement would be partly true, because I got two out of the three correct but my statement would still be false, and if I were taking a test in a history class they would not give me two thirds of a point, they would give me none.

Thanks for posting,

John

 

[Pons]

Look up Office of the Keys at New Advent, where they admit that the Fathers rarely mentioned the idea of authority and jurisdiction when citing this verse.

So they did, albeit rarely. Therefore precedent is present. “Valid development vs. innovation” again.

 

[Tomster]

JMBNH,

In either case, either the RCC or EO is in error, thus one is offering the truth, and the other is false. Schism, whether it be material or formal still equals a divergence on certain key beliefs, and when there is such a divergence there is always one who is false.

John214,

What must also be considered is that in Lutheranism and Calvinism it is the letter of the Bible; in the schismatical churches of the East it is the Bible and “passive” tradition, that is to say, the tradition of the ancient Fathers and most ancient Councils. Therefore these churches are in danger of treating revelation as so much dead capital, as a store of gold which must be passed on to future generations in a merely external fashion, and of overlooking the vital energies that lie in the revelation and work for the further developement of its germinal content. To this danger of pertrifaction and ossification the Orthodox Church has succumbed.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore,

The EO is false at least on some levels according to RCC teaching, it is literally impossible for two contradictory statements to be true, thus, “The Pope is infallible” and “The Pope is not infallible” are literally contradictory and thus one side is false and the other is true. Being closest in form is not what I am after here, I want the truth. Thanks for your post!

I dislike the word “false” in this context. The orthodox have a different conception of infallibility,but they do believe it exists. the same is true with the Trinity. The differences are much more related to culture, language, and politics. The Orthodox have also always supported the primacy of Peter.

JMBNH,

In either case, either the RCC or EO is in error, thus one is offering the truth, and the other is false. Schism, whether it be material or formal still equals a divergence on certain key beliefs, and when there is such a divergence there is always one who is false.

Clearly there were errors on both sides.

 

[John214]

guanophore:

The Orthodox have also always supported the primacy of Peter.

Hey guanophore, I don’t think that this is exactly accurate, the EO had maintained that the Church in Rome was “first among equals” until the schism, however after that they believe the Patriarch of Constantinople has now taken the place of first among equals, at least until the Roman Bishop returns to the Orthodox church.

Also, the EO fully rejects Papal infallibility, and as such either they are false or the RCC is false. It is not a matter of opinion here, this is the only possible option that is not contradictory. Certainly the RCC believes that the EO is closer to the truth than the Protestants, but there are still contradictions, and one is the fullness of the truth. I am interested in what is the fullness of the truth, whether RCC/EO/Protestant.

God Bless

Tomster,

A very interesting perspective. It is certainly true that the RCC is much more dogmatic and structured, and the EO takes much longer to approve of something as binding upon all the Churches, however, this does not mean that the RCC is necessarily true. Indeed the EO could pull the argument that they are closer to what the original Church was like, and thus have preserved true tradition. Either position does not prove one or the others truth, it only serves to distinguish them.

God Bless

 

[Mannyfit75]

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

I think that statement you made contradicts the Bible itself. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus gave the keys to the rest of the Apostles? You can’t find it. You do see that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to bind and loose. The Eastern Orthodox argument is false and erroneous. I also think you taken the prayer out of context.

If you read the prayer it reads:

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

The Apostles did not get the keys, only Peter did. Sorry, I don’t agree with you. You also taken the prayer out of context because that prayer is not consider dogmatic on the issue of the keys of the kingdom.

Only Peter have the keys not the rest of the Apostles. Sorry Adam, you are wrong.

 

[Harpazo]

I think that statement you made contradicts the Bible itself. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus gave the keys to the rest of the Apostles? You can’t find it. You do see that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to bind and loose. The Eastern Orthodox argument is false and erroneous. I also think you taken the prayer out of context.

If you read the prayer it reads:

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

The Apostles did not get the keys, only Peter did. Sorry, I don’t agree with you. You also taken the prayer out of context because that prayer is not consider dogmatic on the issue of the keys of the kingdom.

Only Peter have the keys not the rest of the Apostles. Sorry Adam, you are wrong.

I was about to add that in Manny. The keys were only given to St. Peter, some authority was given to the other Bishops. The Pope is the source of unity for the Catholic Church.

The only thing I wish that could be changed about the Pope’s role, was that he wasn’t necessarily confined to the Roman Church. I don’t know how to word this at all, so I hope I don’t confuse people when I say this. I’d love for the Pope to not have to be “grafted” into the Roman Church upon his election. Because if an Eastern Catholic were elected Pope, he’d automatically be transfered to the Roman Church, at least that’s my understanding of it.

If the Pope could somehow be pan-ritual Church, and celebrate the liturgy in different ritual Churches at different times, that would be great. Again, I don’t know all the intricacies of the matter.

But does everyone know what I’m saying?

Also, John 214, some Catholics are not very fond of the use of the word “RCC” because that generally to them denotes only the Roman or Latin Church. The Catholic Church is comprised of a total of 23 Churches, just like the ancient Church was, filled with different Rites, meaning traditions. Some of these are the Melkites, the Maronites, the Ukrainian Greeks, the Ruthenians, the Armenians, the Syriacs, etc. Each Church has their own leader, and I believe 6 of them have a Patriarch. They all elect their own bishops, hold their own synods, etc. And they respect the Authority of the Pope of Rome to speak on behalf of all Catholics in regards to faith and morals.

The thing with the EO, is that they only Rite they have is the Byzantine tradition. Every EO Church celebrates in the Byzantine Rite. Now, that shows some semblance of unity, but not Catholicity, or universality. The Catholic Church has so much diversity, but there is unity in the diversity because they all maintain the deposit of Faith given to them by Christ, passed on by His Holy Apostles. All teach the same, just from different views and expressions of the same truth.

al-Masih Qom!

Andrew

 

[ForeverAdam]

I think that statement you made contradicts the Bible itself. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus gave the keys to the rest of the Apostles? You can’t find it. You do see that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to bind and loose.

Thanks for your response, Mannyfit. Actually, if you examine the writings of the Holy Fathers you will find that they didn’t make a distinction between the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” and the power to bind and loose:

Saint Hilary of Poiters: “This faith is that which is the foundation of the church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith, which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven” - On the Trinity, Book 6.

Saint John Chrysostom: “The keys of the heavens, that whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” - Homily 54, 2-3.

Saint Augustine: “This refers to the keys about which it is said "whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” - Sermon 3, 8.

If you look at other writings of the Fathers you will find that this connection between the keys and binding and loosing are also affirmed. Therefore, when someone has one of these gifts, they automatically have the other. To argue otherwise is to contradict writings from the ancient Church, which, due to the presence of so many God-bearing Fathers, is a sure guide in our interpretation of Holy Scripture.

The Eastern Orthodox argument is false and erroneous. I also think you taken the prayer out of context.

If you read the prayer it reads:

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

It’s not allowed by the law of apologetics to make an arbitrary redaction of a quote I gave, which conveniently leaves out the parts you find problematic, and subsequently claim victory for your argument. That’s not fair nor is it logical. Please explain why this prayer, so venerable in our Orthodox Tradition, says that the apostles were given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Arguing that they received the keys in a different sense than St. Peter is your Church’s arbitrary (and rather convenient) interpretation and not reflected in the Fathers, who made no such distinctions.

The Apostles did not get the keys, only Peter did. Sorry, I don’t agree with you.

This is not the Faith of the ancient Church, as revealed by the following sampling of quotes:

Saint Jerome: “Elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church depends on them all alike” - Epistle 146, 1.

St. John Chrysostom: “For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven” - First Homily on the Gospel of St. John.

You also taken the prayer out of context because that prayer is not consider dogmatic on the issue of the keys of the kingdom.

It has been a constant principle in the Orthodox Church (and the early Church also) that whatever becomes “dogma”, is in fact part of the always-professed Tradition of the Church. Ergo, any dogma must first exist in the faith of Christians, the Liturgy being the chief way that this Faith is taught and maintained. Seeing this, you cannot pit dogma against any other source of Christian life and teaching, for they all work together as witnesses of the ancient and unchangeable Faith. Therefore, it matters little if a prayer isn’t dogmatic, as it remains a reflection of the Great Tradition, nonetheless, and carries no lesser significance as a witness of the Church’s unchanging Faith. In fact, Orthodoxy would see your Church’s tendency to reduce the essential parts of the Faith to dogmatic definitions as a sign that she is far from the Church of the Holy Fathers, who clearly took a more holistic view of what comprised the essential faith of the Church (which was seen as the entirety of Holy Tradition as passed down in the Church and not only dogmatic definitions).

Only Peter have the keys not the rest of the Apostles. Sorry Adam, you are wrong.

And I’m sorry; your Church’s limitation of the keys to St. Peter is unknown to the ancient Church. Certainly, St. Peter was singled out as the principle of unity for the apostles (showing that the equality of grace and mission of the apostles is, indeed, one and not many), but he was never seen as possessing a power the other apostles didn’t.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Pons]

John Chrysostom:

“[Peter] defers the decision to the whole body, … why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself? What was the motive? This: that he might not seem to bestow it of favor. And, besides, he was not yet endowed with the Spirit. … He did not say: ‘We are sufficient.’ So far was he beyond all vain glory… And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively.”

If Peter could have appointed an apostle himself (but chose not to), as Chrysostom claims, he did have something the others did not have.

Jerome:

“'But you say, the Church is founded upon Peter… Although the same is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church is made solid upon them all equally, yet one of them is elected among the twelve, that by the setting up of a head the occasion of schism may be removed.”

(From PhilVaz’s site.)

Surmising that the 12 Apostles received one aspect of the keys (forgiveness of sins) and Peter in particular received another aspect (authority and jurisdiction) is a natural development in growth and understanding from pre-Schism thought. But the Orthodox don’t accept development in that vein. (Are we to jettison the comparison with the keys in Isaiah because it was not recorded to be taught at a given point in time? I sincerely hope Christ’s church doesn’t work that way.) Anyway, the basis for the teaching of the primacy and supremacy of Peter doesn’t rest on who bore the keys.

 

[John214]

Hey everyone,

Very interesting posts, I am learning a lot. I really do not have a thorough knowledge of this, so I am finding these posts very edifying.

I would give a reply to Harpazo,

Harpazo:

Also, John 214, some Catholics are not very fond of the use of the word “RCC” because that generally to them denotes only the Roman or Latin Church.

You are right, I only say “RCC” out of distinction. The Orthodox Church does not prefer to be called “Eastern Orthodox” either, as they do not view themselves as specifically Eastern, but simply Orthodox in general.

The problem arises in the meanings of the words, Catholic means universal, and Orthodox means right teaching. The Catholic Church views themselves actually as being the “orthodox” Church as well, and the Orthodox Church views themselves as being “catholic” as well. Thus it gets very confusing. To top it all off, the Protestant Church views itself as “catholic” and “orthodox” as well, and many Protestants find it offensive to be called Protestant because they are not protesting anything, but are rather simply looking for “what the Church was supposed to be”, but we will leave that out of this because we are discussing Catholic vs Orthodox beliefs here.

In short, I say “RCC” and “EO” and “Protestant” out of convention, and not to stereotype or to generalize. This is also the same with EO who call the Pope, pope. In all honesty I believe they do not believe the Pope is “pope” in the common sense of the word, and they would probably rather call him the “bishop of Rome” or something of that nature, but they say “pope” out of respect and convention.

Also, Pons,

Interesting. Certainly Peter had a position of some authority in the early Church, and certainly the Bishop of Rome did as well, however was his position equivalent to the modern idea of the Pope? Or was it closer to what the Patriarch of Constantinople has become for the EO? I have always thought that the giving of the keys to Peter was a main argument used by the RCC? You seem to have nearly abandoned that position. I did find your post interesting and I would like for you to elaborate if you would!

ForeverAdam,

Interesting points as well, I will be interested to see how you respond to Pons though, he did raise some good points.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I think that statement you made contradicts the Bible itself. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus gave the keys to the rest of the Apostles? You can’t find it. You do see that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to bind and loose. The Eastern Orthodox argument is false and erroneous. I also think you taken the prayer out of context.

If you read the prayer it reads:

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

The Apostles did not get the keys, only Peter did. Sorry, I don’t agree with you. You also taken the prayer out of context because that prayer is not consider dogmatic on the issue of the keys of the kingdom.

Only Peter have the keys not the rest of the Apostles. Sorry Adam, you are wrong.

I think it’s important to point out Jesus didn’t give Peter the keys. He says I will give you the keys, meaning at some point in the future and, considering the fact that later Jesus gives both Peter and the rest of the Apostles the authority to forgive sins the Orthodox understanding of the keys as being the authority to forgive sins and celebrate the Eucharist does make sense.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[ForeverAdam]

If Peter could have appointed an apostle himself (but chose not to), as Chrysostom claims, he did have something the others did not have.

To this day, patriarchs in our Church have the responsibility of appointing bishops for their patriarchate. This ideally happens through the patriarch working with his synod and confirming the local elections of bishops, per St. Peter’s example in Acts. This is not an issue of greater ontological power of bishops but of different responsibilities. If you desire to see the Pope’s role in the same fashion, then you are on the right track.

“'But you say, the Church is founded upon Peter… Although the same is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church is made solid upon them all equally, yet one of them is elected among the twelve, that by the setting up of a head the occasion of schism may be removed.”

This is still the faith of the Orthodox Church. Holy Orthodoxy, opposed to the majority opinion of Catholicism, believes that all the apostles did receive the apostolic keys and we emphasize them equally as being the foundation of the Church (of course with St. Peter singled out as the symbol of their oneness). And, mirroring the role of St. Peter, we have levels of primacy (local, regional and universal) in our Church so that the fully equal local Churches will remain together in unity and concord, i.e., “so that the occasion of schism may be removed.”

Anyway, the basis for the teaching of the primacy and supremacy of Peter doesn’t rest on who bore the keys.

You need to tell Mannyfit this since he apparently sees something important in only Peter having the keys. Btw, the fact that he defends this principle and you are willing to relinquish it doesn’t inspire confidence in the uniformity of your Church’s understanding of the Petrine Ministry.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Pons]

I really do not have a thorough knowledge of this,

Neither do I.

Certainly Peter had a position of some authority in the early Church, and certainly the Bishop of Rome did as well, however was his position equivalent to the modern idea of the Pope?

The gist of what I’ve read, around here and elsewhere is: No, and it’s not a problem. Others have compared the papacy to a seed that grows into a tree. The bare essentials were there from the beginning (Peter leads the flock.) but the specifics took time to develop. Dozens of posters could explain it better than I. Perhaps Holy Week has preoccupied them?

---

About the keys: I never said I was going to concede to the Orthodox position. Sorry if that was unclear. The keys are very important, of course, as a comparison with Isaiah shows Peter is Christ’s “prime minister”. But one should not ignore all the other factors like the very name Peter, his being the one Jesus puts in charge of his sheep, etc.

In josephdaniels’ words, the keys mean “the ability to forgive sins and celebrate the Eucharist” for the Orthodox. Now all priests hold these powers. Yet only the Pope can declare teachings to be infallible and have a certain jurisdiction over others which other bishops don’t have. My position is - Peter alone receives something the others did not have, which is later defined as (part of) the powers symbolized by the keys and exercised by his chief representative (the bishop of Rome). And this is perfectly valid, since the church is the foundation of truth. No qualifiers regarding dates, just the church.

Isa has previously said the Fathers “rarely mentioned the idea of authority and jurisdiction” regarding the keys and binding and loosing. But I replied, so they did. Therefore precedent is present. The belief was there, and it grew to be the main (?) understanding.

Now, all this boils down to authority, since the Orthodox apparently don’t believe doctrine can develop validly past a certain date while Catholics do.

 

[JMBNH]

To this day, patriarchs in our Church have the responsibility of appointing bishops for their patriarchate.

Likewise in the Catholic Church. The Maronite Patriarch of Antioch appoints the Bishops for the Maronite Church for example and the Bishops elect their new Patriarch (I think that’s how election works) and the new Patriarch merely has to ask for Full Communion with the Pope. Yes in extraordinary circumstances the Pope can remove and appoint Patriarchs (though this doesn’t happen in practice as far as I know), but that has always been the case, Popes have done that from very early on.

 

[Mickey]

An expert in the Catholic Church on the East/West split is a man by the name of James Likoudis.

I have found his writings to be highly prejudiced. I do not recommend his books.

 

[Mickey]

And I’m sorry; your Church’s limitation of the keys to St. Peter is unknown to the ancient Church. Certainly, St. Peter was singled out as the principle of unity for the apostles (showing that the equality of grace and mission of the apostles is, indeed, one and not many), but he was never seen as possessing a power the other apostles didn’t.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

I browsed Likoudis’ his website. Seems he woke up in a cold sweat one night and said, “I’m Protestant”! then ran to the nearest Catholic Church for RCIA.

An overdose of Western history (his argument relies on viewing the Orthodox and Protestants as largely the same thing, and history as a series of rebellions against the Pope) combined with a notable lack of Patristics in his arguments make his papers amusing. Certainly not compelling, however.

 

[Mickey]

… make his papers amusing. Certainly not compelling, however.

Yes.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I have found his writings to be highly prejudiced. I do not recommend his books.

It rather goes without saying that a convert to Orthodoxy likely would not recommend the books of a convert from Orthodoxy.

Which of his writings have you read and how do you feel they are prejudiced?