Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Tomster]

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.

Just a little more history on this subject.

Attempts to heal the breach at the Ecumenical Councils of Lyons in 1274 and Florence in 1439 did not result in permanent reunions as we are all aware. The Easterners agreed to a formula which recognized the pope as “the vicar of Christ, the pastor and teacher of all Christians, having the right to guide and govern the Church, without prejudice to the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchs.” This decree was read in St. Sophia in 1452 but the political motives of the Byzantines and the resistance by the Orthodox believers frustrated the hopeful agreements of the Council.

As the years passed Byznatium fell upon evil days. The Moslems conquered Constantinople in 1453 and converted the chief shrine of Eastern Christendom into a mosque. A sultan appointed and deposed the patriarch as it suited his whims.

The humiliated patriarch of Constantinople had to be content with the primacy of honor rather than jurisdiction as the center of the Orthodox world shifted to Russia. Moscow became a patriarchate in 1589 and 100 years later Czar Peter abolished the patriarchate and organized the “Most Holy Synod” which he controlled. After the fall of the Romanovs the majority of the world’s Orthodox Christians found themselves living under an officially atheistic government.

The Turks faced a series of revolts in the 19th century and as the Ottoman empire collapsed the Greeks, Serbs, Romanians, and Bulgarians shook off the obedience to the sultan’s hand picked patriarch as well as to the sultan. The patriarch was helpless to protest the founding of a succession of national independent Orthodox churches. During the 19th century the patriarch of Constantinople found his spiritual domain amputated again and again.

 

[Tomster]

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.

The election of a layman, Michael Caerularius, as patriarch in 1043 presaged an anti-Western campaign. Haughty and dictatorial, Caerularius despised all things Western and immediately launched a tirade against the pope for such supposed heresies as fasting on the Saturdays of Lent and usinf unleavened bread in communion. The new patriarch closed all Latin churches in Constantinople and desecrated the hosts. Unfortunately, the pope was represented by a tactless cardinal who further antagonized the Byzantines. In 1054 the legates of Pope Leo IX placed the decree of excommunication on the high altar of St. Sophia. This decree applied only to Caerularius and neither the Byzantine faithful nor any other patriarch were formally placed under Roman censure.

 

[steve_b]

Hey Steve B,

Sorry this is a little late, I was on vacation.

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).

John,

IOW, you can call yourself president but you really aren’t?

John:

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?

Looks like others have already answered this

John:

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.

Peter did NOT lead others into error. Paul said of his own style (paraphrased) that to the Jew he became a jew and to the gentile he became a gentile so that …etc etc. This is exactly what Peter was doing so as not to disturb the jews he was trying to minister to. It looked like Paul cuts himself slack when he did the same thing but didn’t cut Peter any slack?

John:

Everyone says “Jesus”, the question is, “Who is right?” Even Mormons say Jesus started their Church.

John

Jesus started one Church and one only.
depositofthefaith.com/downloads/who_started_your_church.html

As for all the divisions and denominations you can obviously see who were their founders, and when they were started. It’s easily verifyable.

 

[prodromos]

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

The Pope didn’t depose Photius and put Ignatius on the patriarchal throne, it was Basil the Macedonian, the murderer of Bardas who accomplished all that.

John

 

[John214]

SteveB:

John,

IOW, you can call yourself president but you really aren’t?

No in the example I provided I would be the president and the other members would have recognized this. It depends on the body to decide the rules, not on our preconceived notions of what a “president” is.
SteveB:

Looks like others have already answered this

No they haven’t, please do. If the filioque and Papal Supremacy are not the main reasons, then what are? Cultural differences? Surely not. The RCC at that time believed the EO had defected from the “original” Nicene creed, and they believed the EO was wrong about Papal non-Supremacy. That was the reason the Papal emmissaries excommunicated the Patriarch in Constantinople correct? (If not, please give the actual reason, not, “No, you are wrong”)
SteveB:

Peter did NOT lead others into error.

Galatians 2:13 “The other Jews joined (Peter) in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.”

You have some explaining to do.
SteveB:

Paul said of his own style (paraphrased) that to the Jew he became a jew and to the gentile he became a gentile so that …etc etc. This is exactly what Peter was doing so as not to disturb the jews he was trying to minister to. It looked like Paul cuts himself slack when he did the same thing but didn’t cut Peter any slack?

This is not comparable, Paul was speaking about how he “presented” himself to others, not how he led them or how he told them to do things. In the same place Paul is explicit that circumcision and Jewish customs are NOT to be put on gentiles. (However, Paul had made the same mistake as Peter in the book of Acts. Paul and Peter both made the mistake at one point, and they both led people wrongly at a time) I do not believe that this is incompatible with Papal infallibility, but it is something that needs to be explained and understood properly.
SteveB:

Jesus started one Church and one only.
depositofthefaith.com/dow…ur_church.html

As for all the divisions and denominations you can obviously see who were their founders, and when they were started. It’s easily verifyable.

Every “Christian” Church says that theirs is the only true Church, and that it is easy to see. The Protestants say that it is obvious that the RCC/EO were corrupted, and that Jesus founded a Church based upon Sola Scripture, the RCC says it is easy to see how the EO and Protestants broke off from them, and the EO says the same about the other two. It is not so easy to verify either, most of the events happened a good deal of time ago, and nearly all were written from an extremely biased perspective. Also each person can read the same writing and come up with completely opposite conclusions. This issue is not one to be taken lightly, and one’s position should not be blindly accepted. I think we can both agree on that!

Sorry this reply was late, I was on vacation. And I do thank you for the challenges! I really do not know too much about these things, and so I welcome the debate!

 

[John214]

Tomster,

I just wanted to reply briefly. I think the Orthodox response would be that, yes at times the Church went through terrible persecution and leaders were corrupted, but the Church itself has remained unblemished and in the Truth. Doctrine has not been compromised.

RCC says the same thing, as many Popes were, put softly, very bad people (some Popes even declared previous Popes “anti-Popes”). None the less, the RCC maintains that the Church Doctrine has remained pure, and the Church has survived.

The difference is that the EO does not put nearly as much emphasis and power on the position of patriarch. Thus if Patriarchs and bishops are corrupted, then the situation is easily remedied whenever the situation becomes better. (As in the case of the Patriarchate of Constantinople). Things seem a bit more complicated when something like this happens to the Pope (though not irreconciably difficult).

I thank you for the history, and it does influence my decisions and adds to the conversation!

 

[Ignatius]

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.

I think that you are confused (otherwise I am). There are “Eastern Rite” Catholics, who do indeed have union with the Pope.

No, I occasionally attend the Melkite or Ruthenian Sui Juris Catholic Churches, they are fully in perfect communion with the Holy See.

I was referring to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which are not, in perfect communion, but have an imperfect communion with The Catholic Church. Jesus Christ founded on Church; it is the Church predomination Church which consisted of all of those in communion with the Pentarchy. Look at it this way Peter and Andrew are brothers, no matter what divisions occur, it is impossible for this God formed relationship to cease. The Catholic Church recognizes that the Orthodox Church is truely part of the Church which Jesus Christ founded and this is the reason that the Communion rail of the Catholic Church is open to the Orthodox.

You certainly have some false impressions as to the stance of the Holy Orthodox Church. His All Holiness Eccumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I has issued the joint declaration that the common goal, in obedience to the command of Jesus that ‘they all must be one’, is full communion.

The only difficulty the the Catholic Church has with saying that the ‘Orthodox is false’ is that that statement itself is false.

God bless.

 

[chrisb]

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.

Well said, Brother.

 

[John214]

Ignatius,

Thanks for posting and clearing up your position.

Ignatius:

The Catholic Church recognizes that the Orthodox Church is truely part of the Church which Jesus Christ founded and this is the reason that the Communion rail of the Catholic Church is open to the Orthodox.

Does the Orthodox Church feel the same way? Also, do they both look at Oriental Orthodox as in “imperfect” union? If not, then why not? It seems illogical to accept the one “imperfectly”, but not to accept the other. Can Catholics also receive communion at Orthodox Churches? If not, then this would seem like a one sided relationship. Like a marriage with one partner. Again, I am not too knowledgable about these things.

Ignatius:

You certainly have some false impressions as to the stance of the Holy Orthodox Church. His All Holiness Eccumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I has issued the joint declaration that the common goal, in obedience to the command of Jesus that ‘they all must be one’, is full communion.

No I knew that, but I also know that a “goal” is not comparable to a reality. Perhaps Orthodox think they should all be one Orthodox Church, and Catholics think they should all be one Catholic Church? Also, Patriarch Bartholomew I does not have the authority the Pope has, all of the Orthodox Church must accept such a change, thus even if he said, “We are one, the Pope is supreme head, and the Nicene creed rightfully includes the filioque clause!” It would not mean much.

 

[steve_b]

No in the example I provided I would be the president and the other members would have recognized this. It depends on the body to decide the rules, not on our preconceived notions of what a “president” is.

your example created a presidency with no authority.

John:

No they haven’t, please do. If the filioque and Papal Supremacy are not the main reasons, then what are? Cultural differences? Surely not. The RCC at that time believed the EO had defected from the “original” Nicene creed, and they believed the EO was wrong about Papal non-Supremacy. That was the reason the Papal emmissaries excommunicated the Patriarch in Constantinople correct? (If not, please give the actual reason, not, “No, you are wrong”)

Try this.
newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

John:

Galatians 2:13 “The other Jews joined (Peter) in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.”

You have some explaining to do.

The word there is

**dis·sim·u·late **
v. dis·sim·u·lat·ed, dis·sim·u·lat·ing, dis·sim·u·lates
*v.*tr. To disguise (one’s intentions, for example) under a feigned appearance. See Synonyms at disguise.

*v.*intr. To conceal one’s true feelings or intentions.

remember the discussion between Jerome and Augustine on this subject, that I gave you?

John:

This is not comparable, Paul was speaking about how he “presented” himself to others, not how he led them or how he told them to do things. In the same place Paul is explicit that circumcision and Jewish customs are NOT to be put on gentiles. (However, Paul had made the same mistake as Peter in the book of Acts. Paul and Peter both made the mistake at one point, and they both led people wrongly at a time) I do not believe that this is incompatible with Papal infallibility, but it is something that needs to be explained and understood properly.

I thought Jerome had a good explanation of this issue.

John:

Every “Christian” Church says that theirs is the only true Church,

and you know that’s impossible. We KNOW all the founders of all the denominations and when they founded their particular group.

John:

The Protestants say that it is obvious that the RCC/EO were corrupted,

How convenient but how unoriginal. You realize, That’s what every heretic in history claimed. As Paul said, to those who divide from the Church of Rome, they don’t serve Our Lord but their own appetites. [Rm 16:17…]

John:

and that Jesus founded a Church based upon Sola Scripture,

This was a totaly novel idea not heard of before the Protestant revolt in general and Luther in particular.

John:

the RCC says it is easy to see how the EO and Protestants broke off from them, and the EO says the same about the other two. It is not so easy to verify either,

John,

Catholics have no problem verifying the truth of the RCC. The information available is staggering.

John:

most of the events happened a good deal of time ago, and nearly all were written from an extremely biased perspective.

You need to remember that if you have such a jaundiced view of Church authority, you put the same lack of trust on the same Church decision on the canon of scripture and everything else as well.

John:

Also each person can read the same writing and come up with completely opposite conclusions.

That’s what Protestants do with sola scriptura.

John:

This issue is not one to be taken lightly, and one’s position should not be blindly accepted. I think we can both agree on that!

Sorry this reply was late, I was on vacation. And I do thank you for the challenges! I really do not know too much about these things, and so I welcome the debate!

:tiphat: It should be fun

 

[John214]

SteveB,

Thank you for responding, I would like to begin by stating that I did not create this thread as a means to debate Protestant vs Catholic, but rather Catholic vs Orthodox. However, I will respond to where our conversation has led so far, with hopes that I can get it back on the right track. As such, I will begin with you assertions against Protestantism, and move to the earlier points last.
SteveB:

We KNOW all the founders of all the denominations and when they founded their particular group.

But this is irrelevant, ask a Lutheran who founded their Church, and if he is worth his salt will say, Jesus Christ, not Martin Luther. The same goes for Presbyterians, etc, etc. The People Luther and Calvin only began the movement, however they were both searching for what Christ established. My only point in saying this is that simply saying, “Christ made my Church” whether RCC, EO, or P, is not enough, one must prove why.
SteveB:

As Paul said, to those who divide from the Church of Rome, they don’t serve Our Lord but their own appetites. [Rm 16:17…]

Paul did not say those who divided from the Church of Rome, he said:

17Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

These divisions are based upon the “doctrine they have learned”, not the doctrine that their Church invented. This seems to support the Protestant idea. However I agree that it does not exclude the RCC/EO perspective either.

Regarding Sola Scripture, you said,
SteveB:

This was a totaly novel idea not heard of before the Protestant revolt in general and Luther in particular.

True, but that is not a proof of its invalidity. (I’d rather not discuss Sola Scripture here though, it is of no consequence in the actual thread)
SteveB:

You need to remember that if you have such a jaundiced view of Church authority, you put the same lack of trust on the same Church decision on the canon of scripture and everything else as well.

You misunderstood me, I have no such jaundiced view. Protestants, RCC, EO, and Secular people all have biases, and especially throughout ancient times. Most things were motivated (that however does not mean they were not true, or accurate on some level).
SteveB:

That’s what Protestants do with sola scriptura.

But I was not talking about interpretation of Scripture alone, I was talking about interpretation of history and written works by Church Fathers. EO and RCC can read the same work by a Church Father, and leave feeling completely justified. We need to try to have an objective view and engage the actual intent of the writers.

Now, onto the main issue
SteveB:

your example created a presidency with no authority.

Not necessarily, and it would not matter. I could say that my president has the right to call meetings and place of honor at meetings. I could say that all issues should be addressed before the president. I could say any number of things. In any case we can have a “first among equals” (For a fictional example, think of King Arthur and the knights of the round table)
SteveB:

Catholics have no problem verifying the truth of the RCC. The information available is staggering.

EO says the same thing. They say that the Pope began to assert himself more and more, as his material power grew, and that the West was wrong in the filioque clause.

Regarding the Schism,

Yes it is true that there were many factors, and attempts at reunification, largely based upon political situations and attacks from Muslims, and not from sincere efforts. However, the main reason for the Split was Papal Supremacy, and the filioque clause. Certainly this was not all, but it was the main.

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

 

[JMBNH]

Does the Orthodox Church feel the same way? Also, do they both look at Oriental Orthodox as in “imperfect” union? If not, then why not? It seems illogical to accept the one “imperfectly”, but not to accept the other. Can Catholics also receive communion at Orthodox Churches? If not, then this would seem like a one sided relationship. Like a marriage with one partner. Again, I am not too knowledgable about these things.

Catholics have the same view of Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East as they do of the Eastern Orthodox, at least since they looked into their beliefs and realised they were no longer heretical

 

[JMBNH]

The Pope didn’t depose Photius and put Ignatius on the patriarchal throne, it was Basil the Macedonian, the murderer of Bardas who accomplished all that.

John

Depends on whether you’re talking about theoretically or practically.

The Pope said Photius was not Patriarch but Ignatius was. Photius refused to listen and claimed to still be Patriarch getting himself excommunicated in the process. While the Pope had the power in Church law to depose the Patriarch of Constantinople he didn’t in secular law, so he required Basil to actually enforce it

 

[John214]

JMBNH:

at least since they looked into their beliefs and realised they were no longer heretical

Please explain “no longer heretical”. What changed about their beliefs? It was my understanding that the Orthodox has remained about the same as the time it split from the RCC.

JMBNH:

The Pope said Photius was not Patriarch but Ignatius was. Photius refused to listen and claimed to still be Patriarch getting himself excommunicated in the process. While the Pope had the power in Church law to depose the Patriarch of Constantinople he didn’t in secular law, so he required Basil to actually enforce it

This is part of the issue, does the Pope have the right to depose and choose Patriarch’s outside of his “jurisdiction” or is all of the Church his “jurisdiction”? The Orthodox view the Pope’s involvement as nothing less than an overextension of his power.

 

[JMBNH]

Please explain “no longer heretical”. What changed about their beliefs? It was my understanding that the Orthodox has remained about the same as the time it split from the RCC…

I never said the Eastern Orthodox changed. The Oriental Orthodox stopped being Monophysite ans the Assyrian Church stopped being Nestorian.

This is part of the issue, does the Pope have the right to depose and choose Patriarch’s outside of his “jurisdiction” or is all of the Church his “jurisdiction”? The Orthodox view the Pope’s involvement as nothing less than an overextension of his power.

The Pope always had the power to depose Patriarchs and practiced it many times throughout history, both early and later on. Both after the Acacian Schism and at the 4th Council of Constantinople (first one) Papal Supremacy was signed up to by the Eastern Church and something very similar to Infallibility was signed after the Acacian Schism

 

[prodromos]

Depends on whether you’re talking about theoretically or practically.

The Pope said Photius was not Patriarch but Ignatius was. Photius refused to listen and claimed to still be Patriarch getting himself excommunicated in the process.

Not Photius, the Synod of bishops rejected the Popes decision.

While the Pope had the power in Church law to depose the Patriarch of Constantinople he didn’t in secular law, so he required Basil to actually enforce it

The Pope did not have the power to depose a bishop outside of his jurisdiction and he didn’t have Basil do anything, I’m surprised at you even suggesting the Pope collaborated with murderers. I didn’t think we saw that sort of behavior from Popes until centuries later.

John

 

[JMBNH]

Not Photius, the Synod of bishops rejected the Popes decision.

True the Eastern Synod of Bishops did but got excommunicated for it

The Pope did not have the power to depose a bishop outside of his jurisdiction and he didn’t have Basil do anything, I’m surprised at you even suggesting the Pope collaborated with murderers. I didn’t think we saw that sort of behavior from Popes until centuries later.

John

It was hardly the first time the Pope had deposed a Patriarch, Dioscorus comes to mind (Chalcedon said it merely accepted St Leo’s decision to depose him), and also Anthimus in the 6th century (I think or was it 7th?).

Though looking into it Basil deposed Photius to try to get the support of the Pope but not by his orders. Though that sort of behaviour was seen by one Pope earlier (Vigilius)

 

[steve_b]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveB
We KNOW all the founders of all the denominations and when they founded their particular group.

John:

But this is irrelevant, ask a Lutheranwho founded their Church, and if he is worth his salt will say, Jesus Christ, not Martin Luther. The same goes for Presbyterians, etc, etc. The People Luther and Calvin only began the movement,

Sheesh! :doh2:

John,

Can you show me where even Luther and Calvin believed that?

 

[John214]

SteveB:

John,

Can you show me where even Luther and Calvin believed that?

What do you mean? Luther and Calvin do not need to believe they were starting a movement, or that Christ founded their church. I am not speaking about them, I am speaking about modern Lutheran’s and Presbyterians, and most all Protestant Churches. They believe primarily in Sola Scripture, and that Jesus created a Church based upon Scriptures only.

Lutherans reject many things that Luther said, as do Presbyterians. They can do that, Luther is not the Pope of the Lutherans, nor Calvin for the Presbyterians. Thus it is irrelevant. If the Catholic Church disagrees with the Pope, then it is somewhat different. One other point, there is a difference between “Founding a Church” and “Beginning a movement”. From the Protestant perspective, the Church was there all along, but Luther (et al) merely began the movement towards implementing the principles and actual truths they believe were obscured by the Catholic Church. Thus Christ founded the Church, Luther began a movement.

I believe the problem lies in perspective, you believe that Protestantism is a brand new religion that began in the 13 to 15th centuries, Protestants see it as a realization of an old faith. It would be just as incorrect for a Protestant to say that Constantine founded the Catholic Church, as it would be to say that Martin Luther founded the Protestant Church.

However, I am not here to debate Protestantism, Sola Scripture, or Sola Fida. I am here to discuss Orthodoxy and Catholicism, because I am interested in both, and would like to know which of the two (if either) were or are correct.

 

[steve_b]

Paul did not say those who divided from the Church of Rome, he said:

These divisions are based upon the “doctrine they have learned”, not the doctrine that their Church invented. This seems to support the Protestant idea. However I agree that it does not exclude the RCC/EO perspective either.

Define doctrine

John:

Now, onto the main issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveB
your example created a presidency with no authority.

John:

Not necessarily, and it would not matter. I could say that my president has the right to call meetings and place of honor at meetings. I could say that all issues should be addressed before the president. I could say any number of things. In any case we can have a “first among equals” (For a fictional example, think of King Arthur and the knights of the round table)

Steve:

This is why I don’t like to get into hypotheticals. We have Jesus words to Peter. Peter is NOT 1st among equals. He has authority to rule the Church. The ENTIRE Church, from Jesus.

John:

EO says the same thing. They say that the Pope began to assert himself more and more, as his material power grew, and that the West was wrong in the filioque clause.

He was asserting himself from the 1st century when he settled sedition among the bishops in Corinth Greece. Thie was DURING apostolic times. St John was still alive living closer to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome.

We’ll revisit this issue of sedition.

John:

Regarding the Schism,

Yes it is true that there were many factors, and attempts at reunification, largely based upon political situations and attacks from Muslims, and not from sincere efforts. However, the main reason for the Split was Papal Supremacy, and the filioque clause. Certainly this was not all, but it was the main.

• Do you understand what sedition is, especially with regards to bishops?
• It was the pope who had to settle sedition in Corinth in the 1st century. He had the power to do so. And he exercised this kind of authority from the 1st century. And of course as the Church grew, the pope’s range expanded accordingly.