Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John214
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pons said:
Yet only the Pope can declare teachings to be infallible and have a certain jurisdiction over others which other bishops don’t have.
Click to expand...
And this is an innovation of the Ultramontanists—ultimately defined in 1870. 😦
 
As has been said elsewhere, the papacy has been likened to a tree which grows from a seed. (John Henry Newman?) One could say this (a plant would serve the following comparison better) about other teachings that developed and the Catholic church itself, which also developed. But in the case of Orthodox Christianity, who “pruned” (for lack of a better word) the plant and why? (If the image offends, I don’t mean to.) Why keep the plant from growing in one sense? Both “plants” continue to derive nourishment from obvious sources, of course.

Comparing Christ’s church to vaguely-defined sports, didn’t he (the coach) largely leave the organization to the team? As long as the team conducts itself in ways which do not contradict certain principles or instructions of the coach - even if they do not exactly do the same things in different quarters of the game (concentrating the play on the team captain more and more, for instance) - aren’t the ways of play all valid?
 
Pons said:
As has been said elsewhere, the papacy has been likened to a tree which grows from a seed.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ is the Tree of Life.
Pons said:
One could say this (a plant would serve the following comparison better) about other teachings that developed and the Catholic church itself, which also developed.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, “development of doctrine” is just a phrase which attempts to justify the innovation of doctrine. 😦
 
Mickey said:
With all due respect, “development of doctrine” is just a phrase which attempts to justify the innovation of doctrine. 😦
Click to expand...
AMEN! Apparently Pons and other Roman Catholics think Christ intended the apostles to make repeat trips to the nations (you know, to bring the new beliefs that have developed) when he commissioned them in Matt. 28. 😃
 
Pons said:
This doesn’t answer my questions just above. What’s wrong with Biblical and Tradition-grounded development?
Click to expand...
Do you believe that the beliefs of the Church today can be different (even if only by the presence of additional beliefs) than the beliefs of the ancient Church?

God bless,

Adam
 
John214 said:
JMBNH,

Thank you for your resonse, I am not Orthodox, but I will try to respond so as to keep this thread going. I believe the Orthodox would say that it is true that the Bishop of Roman did always hold a seat of primacy, but that he was still considered only first among equals.
Click to expand...
If everyone is equal, then no one is first. If one bishop holds primacy, then all the rest don’t.
40.png
John:
I am not so knowledgable about this history but if I am correct, the RCC broke from the EO largely over the authority of the Pope and the filioque clause (which the RCC was wrong about the filioque clause). The RCC was the minority and the EO was the majority.
Click to expand...
Your history is wrong
 
John214 said:
I believe that the EO Church believes that the RCC has twisted that Scripture, and that the Latin translation is majorly to blame (again I am not Orthodox so I won’t pretend I can speak for them in any real way). For that matter, there are many ways to interpret such a verse. And it does not have to be that there would always be a certain Bishop in Rome who were tied directly with Peter. Rather it could have been a temporaneous statement, or it could be that it was the faith of Peter. I believe the EO states that Rome was given primacy because it was the Old capital of the Christian world, and Constantinople was “secondary” because it was the new capital, but that neither were infallible, or the main power in the Church.
Click to expand...
John,

This subject has been handled head to head tons of times on these forums. May I suggest looking up the threads that pertain to Peter, primacy, etc. Or you can cruise through some articles written on the subject from the CA library
catholic.com/search.asp?query=peter+primacy
40.png
John:
This being said, Paul rebuked Peter to his face and proved him wrong. How could it be that the primary infallible member of the Church should be rebuked and proven wrong by Paul, who claimed to be “the least of the Apostles”?
Click to expand...
Scroll down to ch 3 v 9 and start reading for some broader context. Jerome and Augustine are discussing this matter.

newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm
40.png
John:
Also, it is not fair to say, “Who looks more like the Universal Church” It could just as well be said, “Who looks more like the original Church?” Or “Who looks less corrupted?” These are value statements and each persons answer will be subjective.
Click to expand...
I think the question to ask is

who started YOUR church?
 
ForeverAdam said:
AMEN! Apparently Pons and other Roman Catholics think Christ intended the apostles to make repeat trips to the nations (you know, to bring the new beliefs that have developed) when he commissioned them in Matt. 28. 😃
Click to expand...
Such sarcasm seems to be of little value other than polemic in a discussion such as this. It would be just as easy to ask Pons to clarify and or choose to make a counterpoint.

Being sarcastic and making fun doesn’t really help. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, being that this is an RC dominated forum, that sort of banter is only going to serve to alienate many folks who may just be on the fence and open to hearing your side. But sarcasm like that only hastens disinterest and gives people an excuse or a reason to not listen.

It will of course score you major points with people who already side with you. Preaching to the choir is always easy.
 
ForeverAdam said:
😛 Loosen up.
Click to expand...
Flippancy won’t do well either…

But on that score, for the life of me I can’t understand why I am giving advice to demonstrate charity. As an apologist for Catholicism and a defender of unia, such uncharity really just makes my job easier.

So on second thought, keep up the sarcasm and flippancy.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Flippancy won’t do well either…

But on that score, for the life of me I can’t understand why I am giving advice to demonstrate charity. As an apologist for Catholicism and a defender of unia, such uncharity really just makes my job easier.

So on second thought, keep up the sarcasm and flippancy.
Click to expand...
Exactly my brother! Let us be charitable, patient, and prudent for we are certain of our Faith. Let them resort to flippancy, sarcasm, uncharity, etc. to advance their anti-Catholic agenda. At the end, we will triumph!
 
John214 said:
So the question is, “Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church False”? !
Click to expand...
It’s not. It’s actually part of The Catholic Church, though it is not in perfect union. That is why the Communion Rail of the Catholic Church is open to the Orthodox.
 
Ignatius said:
It’s not. It’s actually part of The Catholic Church, though it is not in perfect union. That is why the Communion Rail of the Catholic Church is open to the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
However, Orthodox Christians are told (at least by the conservative priests in that faith) to not receive Communion at a Catholic Church. Likewise, Catholics may not receive Communion at an Orthodox Church.
 
Hey Steve B,

Sorry this is a little late, I was on vacation.
Steve B:
If everyone is equal, then no one is first. If one bishop holds primacy, then all the rest don’t.
Click to expand...
Not true, there are plenty of examples where there is a first among equals. Only in competitions or exclusive instances must there be a first who is clearly distinguished from all other participants. For instance, me and three guys could start a club called, “The debating guys” And I could call myself president, we could also establish that meetings would be held at my house, and that I hold some privileges, but we could also state clearly that all four members are equal and have equal say (or even weighted votes to a degree).
Steve B:
Your history is wrong
Click to expand...
It is one thing to tell a person he is wrong, it is another thing to prove it. If the filioque and primacy of the Pope were not the main reasons for the split, then what was? Certainly cultural and language differences played a part, and certainly the sacking of Constantinople some 200 years later played a part, but the two points I mentioned were the main reasons. If not what?
Steve B:
Scroll down to ch 3 v 9 and start reading for some broader context. Jerome and Augustine are discussing this matter.
Click to expand...
I read it, it was interesting. But the only real thing it shows is that Peter had some precedence over Paul, according to Jerome. Paul and Peter both made mistakes, as did all the Apostles, however what matters is if one claims infallibility and makes a mistake in leading others in doctrine. The fact remains that Paul was an Apostle, and that he rebuked Peter who was leading others into error. Infallible Popes should not lead others into “doctrinal” error. In any case, this is not conclusively against the RCC, I wouldn’t base an argument on this alone either.
Steve B:
I think the question to ask is

who started YOUR church?
Click to expand...
Everyone says “Jesus”, the question is, “Who is right?” Even Mormons say Jesus started their Church.

John
 
Ignatius,
40.png
Ignatius:
It’s not. It’s actually part of The Catholic Church, though it is not in perfect union. That is why the Communion Rail of the Catholic Church is open to the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
I think that you are confused (otherwise I am). There are “Eastern Rite” Catholics, who do indeed have union with the Pope. However the EO and RCC are 100% different Churches. Ask the Patriarch of Constantinople (or any other Patriarch, Bishop, Priest, or most lay persons) if the EO is part of the RCC, and he will most certainly say no. It would be like a person saying that they are married to a woman (and claiming that the marriage isn’t a perfect union), when in fact they are not and they clearly got divorced years ago. The guy can even say that she could come back and stay at his house any time, but it doesn’t make them more married.

I am adamant that by claiming that you hold “more of” the truth, you are claiming that the person(s) who hold “less” are indeed wrong. I think we can all agree on what is different between the RCC and EO, and we can all probably relatively agree on how it came to be. What I want to know is, from the Catholic perspective, why is the Orthodox Church wrong? Asking why means more than just saying, “Because they don’t recognize papal primacy” it means explaining on some level why that is wrong. I know it is a big concept and long argument, but I hope to see strong arguments from both sides.

In any case, thank you for your post! I understand that both sides have difficulty saying that the other is “False” (though historically this has been extremely easy for both), but we need to admit the obvious in order for us to discuss the reasons and come to a solution.

John
 
John214 said:
It is one thing to tell a person he is wrong, it is another thing to prove it. If the filioque and primacy of the Pope were not the main reasons for the split, then what was? Certainly cultural and language differences played a part, and certainly the sacking of Constantinople some 200 years later played a part, but the two points I mentioned were the main reasons. If not what?
Click to expand...
Those reasons are some of the factors but also:

The Eastern Church trying to force their local practices on the Roman Church in the same way they had forced them on those in the other eastern Patriarchates who had stayed in the Catholic Church after Chalcedon. The Council of Trullo shows how intolerant they were of any other traditions

The Patriarch of Constantinople claiming equality with the Pope and authority over all the eastern Church plus the Balkans and southern Italy

Photius stirring up the East against the Pope after the Pope rightly deposed him and put the true Patriarch back on the throne

The Muslims separating the union made at the Council of Florence due to not wanting their subjects having links with Rome
 
JMBNH,

I am certain that all of those things had some bearing as well, however it all depends on your perspective. Officially the RCC and EO split in 1057 (I think) when the Papal emmissaries put a bull of excomunication on the altar at the Hagia Sophia. The reasons, denying Papal primacy, and denying the “original” Nicene creed (when in fact they believed in the original).

The Patriarch of Constantinople also appears to already have been nearly equal to the Bishop of Rome, except in precedence, so it would not have been such a huge jump.

Thanks for the post though, and you are right that disputes about the other issues did further cause the rift.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top