Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Evlogitos]

So, just hypothetically speaking, Tony, what would happen if you just up and said, “despite the fact that the pope has explicitly and expressly approved his orthodoxy, I’m breaking communion with my diocesan bishop… but not with the pope, of course”?

If you ask me, that seems like an awfully canonically precarious position to take for a Roman Catholic (very SSPX, in a way). If communion flows from the see of Rome, in plenitude through the supreme ordinary jurisdiction of a bishop within his diocese, then logically, breaking communion with one of the bishops is tantamount to breaking communion with the papacy itself, regardless of your flowery protests to the contrary. We know Maximus was orthodox, so we cannot ascribe Donatism to him. I just don’t see any way to frame the issue other than that Maximus explicitly denied the sacramental validity of the Roman communion, over and against the papacy, if it did not conform to received Truth. Help me out here.

As to your quotes:

-Chalcedon falls under the third fallacy I listed earlier: Laudatory and flattering language toward the papacy does not infallibility make.

-Same with Anatolius.

-Maximus is a combination of Western fatherdom (I believe that was written during his lengthy stay in Carthage), laudation directed Romeward, and and praise for general Roman orthodoxy.

-Nikephoros is praise for Roman orthodoxy and laudation directed Romeward. Note that he does not describe exclusivity in papal prerogatives; he merely says that Roman approval was a vital and indispensable part of obtaining conciliar catholicity in the Church. No Orthodox historian would deny this. You’re reading too much into it.

-Theodore is a slight whiff of “Peter = pope,” and of course every novelty should be referred to Rome’s consideration, given its status as the largest Patriarchate in the Empire and the one with the best track record of Orthodoxy. That doesn’t mean Roman approval is the sine qua non of orthodoxy, though.

-Theodore’s second quote seems to me to be a defense of conciliarity, a twisting of grammar (is he saying the pope calls an ecumenical council, or the emperor?), and a suggestion of the pope’s extraordinary rights of appeal.

-I would like to see broader context for Methodius, but even if we take his words at bare and literal face value, he’s late enough that his single voice should not be taken as representative of the consensus fidei (just like John Chrysostom, Tertullian, and a few others, while a weighty testimony, are insufficient to prove that the Virgin was not sinless).

 

[steve_b]

Steve B,

Thanks for the reply and the quotes!

:tiphat: no problem

I just grabbed a few that I thought would help the process

John:

They were interesting,

What quotes do you find interesting? Did you learn anything new from any of them

John:

However, they constantly express that a council only has value in that it is ratified by the Pope. Thus the votes honestly do not matter.

John,

read again paragraphs # 894, 895, 938, 1560. Then let’s talk

 

[John214]

Steve B,

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Regarding the underlined part: So this is saying that they don’t have any real power, that they just propose what they think is right.

Regarding the blue part: In other words they can come up with a fallible idea that might explain the faith better.

884"The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council." But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor

This is exactly my pont.

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

But the Bishops only have infallibility, when they are affirmed by the Pope. Is it just me, or does this seem to put all of the infallibility on the Pope? Sounds like an extension of ex cathedra.

894 “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.

This, while interesting, is local and not controversial. Also it is not really related to ecumenical councils.

895 “The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.” But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

Okay, but again local. I understand that the Bishops have value in ordinary affairs.

936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is “head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth” (CIC, can. 331).

Alright.

938 The Bishops, established by the Holy Spirit, succeed the apostles. They are “the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches” LG 23)

Okay.

1560 As Christ’s vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches"Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church."

Sure. The only point of contention is the context. 884, 891, and 892 explain what this means.

1594 The bishop receives the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders, which integrates him into the episcopal college and makes him the visible head of the particular Church entrusted to him. As successors of the apostles and members of the college, the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, successor of St. Peter.

Again, it is the context of what the “authority of the Pope” means.

Are you able to answer my question now?

 

[Mickey]

No pope has ever taught heresy

**The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of **Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

 

[Mickey]

With RCC patristic prooftexts, there is invariably a massive conflation made with regard to the following six fallacies:

-“Peter” = “the pope”

-Praise for Roman orthodoxy = outright and permanent infallibility

-Laudatory and flowery language addressed to the pope, typically written by appealing or attempting to appease, = definitive and detailed dogmatic attestation to papal prerogatives

-The papacy pontificating at length about how awesome and powerful it is = proof that the catholic Church accepted these claimed prerogatives

-Extraordinary papal right of appeal (as Alexandria and Constantinople also had, in similar form) = universal ordinary jurisdiction

-Western fathers, speaking of the magnificence and extent of papal jurisdiction within the Western Patriarchate, = proof that the Eastern Church was equally subject to and complicit with such jurisdiction

Amen, brother.

 

[anthony022071]

Evlogitos:

So, just hypothetically speaking, Tony, what would happen if you just up and said, “despite the fact that the pope has explicitly and expressly approved his orthodoxy, I’m breaking communion with my diocesan bishop… but not with the pope, of course”?

The patriarch of Constantinople wasn’t the one that Maximos had to be in communion with to be be in communion with the Church,the pope was.

If you ask me, that seems like an awfully canonically precarious position to take for a Roman Catholic (very SSPX, in a way).

The SSPX are out of communion with Rome.

If communion flows from the see of Rome, in plenitude through the supreme ordinary jurisdiction of a bishop within his diocese, then logically, breaking communion with one of the bishops is tantamount to breaking communion with the papacy itself, regardless of your flowery protests to the contrary.

That isn’t necessarily true. Rome can make mistakes,out of ignorance,or from being misled,regarding the orthodoxy of a bishop of another city.

newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm
< He [Maximos] disbelieved the statement made to him that the envoys of the pope had accepted the confession of “two wills on account of the diversity and one will on account of the union,” and pointed out that the union not being a substance could have no will. He wrote on this account to his disciple the Abbot Anastasius, who was able to send a letter to warn “the men of elder Rome firm as a rock” of the deceitful confession which the Patriarch Peter was despatching to the pope. >

We know Maximus was orthodox, so we cannot ascribe Donatism to him. Monophysitism?

I just don’t see any way to frame the issue other than that Maximus explicitly denied the sacramental validity of the Roman communion, over and against the papacy, if it did not conform to received Truth. Help me out here.

Maximos did not think that Rome would ever cease to conform to received truth.

“For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.”

As to your quotes:

-Chalcedon falls under the third fallacy I listed earlier: Laudatory and flattering language toward the papacy does not infallibility make.

I posted those quotes in response to a question about the relationship between councils and popes,not infallibility.

 

[steve_b]

With RCC patristic prooftexts, there is invariably a massive conflation made with regard to the following six fallacies:

-Praise for Roman orthodoxy = outright and permanent infallibility

-Laudatory and flowery language addressed to the pope, typically written by appealing or attempting to appease, = definitive and detailed dogmatic attestation to papal prerogatives

-The papacy pontificating at length about how awesome and powerful it is = proof that the catholic Church accepted these claimed prerogatives

-Extraordinary papal right of appeal (as Alexandria and Constantinople also had, in similar form) = universal ordinary jurisdiction

-Western fathers, speaking of the magnificence and extent of papal jurisdiction within the Western Patriarchate, = proof that the Eastern Church was equally subject to and complicit with such jurisdiction

What I would really love to see is an Eastern Father who argued fiercely with the papacy on one or another issue that was not resolved at that time by council, who eventually said something to the effect of “you know, I really hate to concede, but you’re the pope, and thus what you say must be right.” In other words, I’d like to see a successful exercise of the pope’s supposed universal ordinary jurisdiction that proved effective on an orthodox Father who really didn’t like the pope at all.

No organization on the planet has built more hospitals, schools, colleges, charities, or evangelized worldwide, than the Catholic Church. 1 out of 5 people on the planet is Catholic. I venture to say there are very few people on the planet who haven’t heard of the papacy, and I would also venture to say the pope is known by name or is recognized by sight by virtually everyone who has a t.v. or who can follow the world news. Gorbachev even credits the fall of communism to JPII. The Father keeps His promise.

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

The patriarch of Constantinople wasn’t the one that Maximos had to be in communion with to be be in communion with the Church,the pope was.

Maximos was with Rome NOT because of her Authority but because of his loyalty to the Orthodox Faith*"…but rather she has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession…"[PG 91: 137-40]* in which the Pope at that time was Orthodox, (Remember that the Emperor thumb at that time was upon all to unite under this heresy.

That isn’t necessarily true. Rome can make mistakes,out of ignorance,or from being misled,regarding the orthodoxy of a bishop of another city.

what about the Orthodoxy of the faith, such as the “limbo” “Purgatory” “Indulgences” " the Pope is the HEAD of the CHURCH" etc…

Maximos did not think that Rome would ever cease to conform to received truth.

“For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.”

The following is more genuine, but it is only a minor alteration this time…
but rather she has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession; she opens the genuine and only piety to those who approach her piously, but closes every heretical mouth that speaks injustice… [PG 91: 137-40]
Note, this blue text, thats precisely why Maximus aligned himself with the Roman see, Because of Faith and not Authority.
my question to you would be, how much diffrent is the Roman See now from the time of Maximus??? I encourage everyone to compare. try the following link for more on the changes of Rome:orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

I posted those quotes in response to a question about the relationship between councils and popes,not infallibility.

Everything falls under infallibility in the Roman See.

 

[Ignatios]

No organization on the planet has built more hospitals, schools, colleges, charities, or evangelized worldwide, than the Catholic Church. 1 out of 5 people on the planet is Catholic. I venture to say there are very few people on the planet who haven’t heard of the papacy, and I would also venture to say the pope is known by name or is recognized by sight by virtually everyone who has a t.v. or who can follow the world news. Gorbachev even credits the fall of communism to JPII. The Father keeps His promise.

So did Hitler, Stalin… etc
As for the charity, colleges, Schools and Hospitals…yes we know your church is unsurpassed with all of the above, but as for Evangelizing? From where I came, I didnt see evangelizing but proselytizing.
There is a lots of facts and truth, If I speak of them you would be offended greatly, however our intention here is to bring the truth and not generating hatred since we can see clearly that your words are boasted with pride.
However my freind, we converse with you so that you may know and we definitely try to avoid to the best of our ability not to upset you for then you will hate us because of the truth.
As one of the Middle Easterner poet said"…the truth had taught me to hate it…"GBU

 

[anthony022071]

Maximos was with Rome NOT because of her Authority but because of his loyalty to the Orthodox Faith

The see of Rome had authority for the very reason that it was known to be the place where the orthodox faith would always be kept,on account of Christ’s promise to Peter.

Theodoret of Cyrus:
“This most holy See has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace.” (Epistle 116 to Renatus).

thats precisely why Maximus aligned himself with the Roman see, Because of Faith and not Authority.
my question to you would be, how much diffrent is the Roman See now from the time of Maximus?

It’s less aggressively authoritative than it was in Maximos’ time.
And modern popes and bishops are less insistent upon the supremacy of the Roman see than in Maximos’ time. You don’t hear modern Catholic bishops talking about Rome and the popes and the Chair of Peter that some of the Eastern Fathers did.

Maximos also recognized the supreme authority of Rome over all
the other churches.

Everything falls under infallibility in the Roman See.

That’s not true. Only ex cathedra pronouncements of doctrine.

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

The see of Rome had authority for the very reason that it was known to be the place where the orthodox faith would always be kept,on account of Christ’s promise to Peter.

1. according to the RCC Teaching
2. Did Saint Peter give the Authority to the Pope or to the Church?
3. Did Saint Peter ordained the bishop of Rome only?
4. show me where the LORD said to Saint Peter pass this to Rome or actualy to the Bishop of Rome? or show me where Saint Peter had said that this Authority and supreme pontiff the head of all the Church of GOD in the whole world is to be for the Bishop of Rome and only?
5. we do not see that the Orthodox Faith was kept by Pope Honorius, and that was immediatly after the death of Saint Maximos( died in the year 623?) Pope Honorius I (625-38).
6. The Orthodox faith taught to baptize by three immersions in the water, now it is in the RCC by sprinkling or effusion.
7. the ancient rituals of Rome and Gaul testify the precious gifts are consecrated after the prayer of the invocation of the Holy Spirit by the blessing of the priest…what about the Immaculate conception, Purgatory, infallibility, Indulgences, the Pope as the HEAD of the Church of CHRIST DOGMATICALY and list goes on and on … Just mentioned a few for you, where do you see the Orthodox faith in all that???

anthony:

Theodoret of Cyrus:
“This most holy See has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace.” (Epistle 116 to Renatus).

Theodoret (c. 393 – c. 457)
How many time do I have to refute you concerning those statements before you give it up? how many times?.

I have refuted just about everyone you put forth not to say all of them…again and again and again…you have been posting a flawed statements or distorted or half quotes or misquotes and some dont even exist it !!!

…you are making a very bad reputation for yourself and your church it is soooo bad to a point that I started to think that you are not RC but someone who wants to really put them down with those quotes…
Lets look at what Theodoret said …but this is the last time since you proven repeatedly that your statements are very highly unreliable sources and flawed…

Theodoret of Cyrus:
Theodoret also, who, like Chrysostom, proceeded from the Antiochian school, says of the “great city of Antioch,” that it has the “throne of Peter.In a letter to Pope Leo he speaks, it is true, in very extravagant terms of Peter and his successors at Rome, in whom all the conditions, external and internal, of the highest eminence and control in the church are combined.But in the same epistle he remarks, that the “thrice blessed and divine double star of Peter and Paul rose in the East and shed its rays in every direction;” in connection with which it must be remembered that he was at that time seeking protection in Leo against the Eutychian robber-council of Ephesus (449), which had unjustly deposed both himself and Flavian of Constantinople.
PLEASE read all the above and comprehend it
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.viii.xiv.html?highlight=epistle,116,to,renatus#highlight

and dont forget to read the comentary in the yellow.

It’s less aggressively authoritative than it was in Maximos’ time.
And modern popes and bishops are less insistent upon the supremacy of the Roman see than in Maximos’ time. You don’t hear modern Catholic bishops talking about Rome and the popes and the Chair of Peter that some of the Eastern Fathers did.

Maximos also recognized the supreme authority of Rome over all
the other churches.

the fact according to your catechesim are in a big contridiction with the above statement.
Maximos assumed wrongly, we know that when we study carefully his words …he build all that on false documents that it was showed to him by the Latins…when he spoke about councils and creeds …etc

That’s not true. Only ex cathedra pronouncements of doctrine.

yes. ex-cathedra in the faith and moral issues only … but where is the boundry of this faith and morals…what, apostolic deposit?, then where infallibility came from?, who and where does it say that you need to beleive that the THEOTOKOS assumption had something to do with your salvation(Dogma)?, or…etc

 

[steve_b]

As for the charity, colleges, Schools and Hospitals…yes we know your church is unsurpassed with all of the above,

It’s the fruit of the one true Catholic faith.

Ignatios:

but as for Evangelizing? From where I came, I didnt see evangelizing but proselytizing.

When the Blessed Mother appeared to Juan Diego, 9+million Indians converted to the Catholic Church. I suppose you call that unfair when the Mother of God converts massive amounts of people to her son’s Church. sancta.org/

Ignatios:

There is a lots of facts and truth, If I speak of them you would be offended greatly, however our intention here is to bring the truth and not generating hatred since we can see clearly that your words are boasted with pride.
However my freind, we converse with you so that you may know and we definitely try to avoid to the best of our ability not to upset you for then you will hate us because of the truth.
As one of the Middle Easterner poet said"…the truth had taught me to hate it…"GBU

As you will note, my posts have stressed the Catholic Faith. Go back and look at all of them.

When I mentioned what the Catholic Church has done world wide, it was in response to Evlogitos who discounts who the Catholic Church is. 300+ posts on this thread, Catholics aren’t trying to invent the papacy as if it hasn’t been here for 2000 years. History has produce consistant evidence throughout time, of what the Catholic Church position is, and we see it beginning from the very beginning in the 1st centuries of the Church. Anybody can see that is true. Now if you want to show what the Orthodox have done in the same areas I’ve mentioned, be my guest…

When I show you that 1 in 5 people on the planet are Catholics, that’s a truth. If you want to show what the Orthodox have done, be my guest.

You look at it as pride on my part. My closing comment on that post was “The Father keeps His promise” That’s who is really doing the work. If I brag I brag in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And of course the Blessed Mother.

I didn’t draw your eye to myself or the Church as the key on that post you are responding to, but the Father.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3662043&postcount=347

 

[Ignatios]

steve b:

It’s the fruit of the one true Catholic faith

No offence but, does all the abuses ( I wont mention them ) of your Church go under the same true Catholic faith that you have mentioned above?.
Matthew 6:3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing… Now this is Christianity, this is the True Catholic and ORTHODOX Faith.
steve b:

When the Blessed Mother appeared to Juan Diego, 9+million Indians converted to the Catholic Church. I suppose you call that unfair when the Mother of God converts massive amounts of people to her son’s Church.

I never said unfair or anything, besides,
I came from the middle east, the RCs “missionaries” came to our land to christianise the christians that were christians from the time when the christians were first called christians…Do you get it , and once they landed a foot in there, they divided the Churches of GOD so they would go under the Pope, they used those poverty-stricken People and their hospitality, the simplicity, their faith and their pure love to proselytizing them and bring them under the Pope.
Steve, you , as RC as christian, would you accept such things to be done to other christians???this is my question to you

History has produce consistant evidence throughout time, of what the Catholic Church position is, and we see it beginning from the very beginning in the 1st centuries of the Church. Anybody can see that is true. Now …

we have already discussed that, we proved that it wasnt consistent at all, we prooved you wrong in every step of the way, all one has to do is go back and read all the posts on this thread so he might know the truth.

steve:

…Now if you want to show what the Orthodox have done in the same areas I’ve mentioned, be my guest… When I show you that 1 in 5 people on the planet are Catholics, that’s a truth. If you want to show what the Orthodox have done, be my guest.

First it is not appropriate nor is it christian to speak of such things unless there is an exceptions in which I dont see here.
But I can speak of other areas where we can tell what the Orthodox Church gave, and that was not money nor hospitals neither colleges or anything of this world, the Orthodox gave Millions uppon Millions of Martyrs in the twentieth century alone +/-, more then what the christians of the west all combined together gave in their whole entire existence as christians check the following link for that…serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm

But now in GOD’s Grace His Church is just started to come off from under 500 years of oppressions and CHRIST now is gathering His People under His Church from all 4 corners of the earth, we see the Orthodox Church here in the USA the fastest growing Church. in the middle east the Melkite Catholic are becoming closer then ever to the Orthodox Church (look up the Zoghby resolution) where they said that they(Melkites catholic) beleive everything the Orthodox Church Teaches. we See in Africa, Orthodoxy over there is spreading like a wild fire…etc

 

[steve_b]

Steve B,

Regarding the underlined part: So this is saying that they don’t have any real power, that they just propose what they think is right.

Regarding the blue part: In other words they can come up with a fallible idea that might explain the faith better.

But the Bishops only have infallibility, when they are affirmed by the Pope. Is it just me, or does this seem to put all of the infallibility on the Pope? Sounds like an extension of ex cathedra.

This, while interesting, is local and not controversial. Also it is not really related to ecumenical councils.

Okay, but again local. I understand that the Bishops have value in ordinary affairs.

Sure. The only point of contention is the context. 884, 891, and 892 explain what this means.

Again, it is the context of what the “authority of the Pope” means.

Are you able to answer my question now?

As the passages I quoted say, the bishop has immediate rule over his own diocese. That’s a local juristiction. In an ecumenical council, in order for the bishops decisions in council, to have binding force over the entire Church, the pope is necessary to confirm their decisions.

that’s the hierarchy of juristiction we see going back to the upper room. Peter is the one to confirm the whole. If he doesn’t confirm it, it’s not binding on the whole.

 

[steve_b]

Matthew 6:3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing… Now this is Christianity, this is the True Catholic and ORTHODOX Faith.

Jesus didn’t stop there as if that is a summary statement. He also said don’t hide your light under a bushell basket. Catholics give quietly, AND we also build charities, schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, and evangelize the world. That’s how 1 in 5 people on the planet today are Catholics.

Ignatios:

I came from the middle east, the RCs “missionaries” came to our land to christianise the christians that were christians from the time when the christians were first called christians…Do you get it ,

Okay, I’ll play along. I’m sure you know the abysmal population figures, but today, Christianity is less than 2% in that part of the world. So when Jesus returns and asks YOU, what have YOU done to increase Christianity in the middle East since the book of Acts was written 2000 years ago, what are YOU going to say to Him?

your first words better not be to start blaming someone else.

Ignatios:

and once they landed a foot in there, they divided the Churches of GOD so they would go under the Pope, they used those poverty-stricken People and their hospitality, the simplicity, their faith and their pure love to proselytizing them and bring them under the Pope.

Excuse ME??? :doh2:
You’ve got that wrong.

• The Orthodox divided into autocephelous ethnic Churches.
• Being under the pope unites NOT divides the Church of God.
  That’s what makles the Church truly Catholic.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by steve b:

Jesus didn’t stop there as if that is a summary statement. He also said don’t hide your light under a bushell basket. Catholics give quietly, AND we also build charities, schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, and evangelize the world. That’s how 1 in 5 people on the planet today are Catholics.

Evangelicals do he same.

Originally Posted by steve b:

Okay, I’ll play along. I’m sure you know the abysmal population figures, but today, Christianity is less than 2% in that part of the world. So when Jesus returns and asks YOU, what have YOU done to increase Christianity in the middle East since the book of Acts was written 2000 years ago, what are YOU going to say to Him?

your first words better not be to start blaming someone else.

You are aware, I hope, that the Middle Eastern Christians have suffered much persecution the past several centuries. And Middle Eastern Christians do evangelize, but in ways that do not draw attention to themselves and make them open targets of anti-Christian laws.

Excuse ME??? :doh2:
You’ve got that wrong.

• The Orthodox divided into autocephelous ethnic Churches.
• Being under the pope unites NOT divides the Church of God.
  That’s what makles the Church truly Catholic.

The Church of God cannot be divided. Uniatism, it should be mentioned, strongly separated the Western Church from the Eastern Church.

The “autocephelous ethnic Churches” charge is rather silly I think, since even in the Western Church and until fairly recently, parishes were divided along ethnic lines. Moreover, although the present and previous Popes were/are non-Italians, the vast majority of Roman Popes have been Italians. I’m not even going to mention that the Latin Church is only one of the many churches in the Western Communion, the other Eastern Churches in that communion often named or strongly identified with their ethnicity: Maronite, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Ruthenian, etc.

Is there a stigma against ethnicity in the Church?

 

[anthony022071]

1. according to the RCC Teaching
2. Did Saint Peter give the Authority to the Pope or to the Church?

 

[steve_b]

Evangelicals do he same.

True

Madaglan:

You are aware, I hope, that the Middle Eastern Christians have suffered much persecution the past several centuries. And Middle Eastern Christians do evangelize, but in ways that do not draw attention to themselves and make them open targets of anti-Christian laws.

It would be interesting to explore the question, would the middle Eastern Christians have suffered as much if they

• had evangelized the East
• not split into 17 or so individual autocephelous churches

Madaglan:

The Church of God cannot be divided.

Why then did Jesus pray for unity among the apostles behind Peter, if division was not possible?

Why did Paul warn against divisions and factions, if that wasn’t a possibility?

Madaglan:

Uniatism, it should be mentioned, strongly separated the Western Church from the Eastern Church.

I would suggest it restored unity to many who were seperated.

Madaglan:

The “autocephelous ethnic Churches” charge is rather silly I think, since even in the Western Church and until fairly recently, parishes were divided along ethnic lines.

Parishes in the U.S for example reflect in most cases diverse neighborhoods. You can’t dictate where people want to live or who they want to live next to. So while some neighborhoods/parishes might be heavily ethnic in some cases, they are one, under the pope. They aren’t split into autocephelous churches. The Latin rite makes up 98%+ of the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. The other 1 - 2% of the world’s Catholics are from the Eastern rites.

Madaglan:

I’m not even going to mention that the Latin Church is only one of the many churches in the Western Communion,

True. Even though the Latin rite is 98% of the Catholic Church, the Eastern rites, which make up the remaining 1-2%, have equal dignity with the Latin rite.

The operative word you use is communion. All are one in communion with the pope.

Madaglan:

the other Eastern Churches in that communion often named or strongly identified with their ethnicity: Maronite, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Ruthenian, etc.

True, but again, the operative word is communion. What unifies ALL, is that they are in communion with the pope, not out of union with the pope…

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by steve b:

It would be interesting to explore the question, would the middle Eastern Christians have suffered as much if they

• had evangelized the East
• not split into 17 or so individual autocephelous churches

Eastern Christians includes your Eastern Catholic brothers. They too are suffering in the Middle East.

What exactly are you suggesting?

Why then did Jesus pray for unity among the apostles behind Peter, if division was not possible?

Why did Paul warn against divisions and factions, if that wasn’t a possibility?

The Church is the Body of Christ and cannot be divided, any more than you can divide Christ.

There may be disagreements within the Body of Christ, but the disagreements do not lead to the division of the Body of Christ.

I would suggest it restored unity to many who were seperated.

It created a parallel hierarchy to the Eastern one and sealed the schism.

Parishes in the U.S for example reflect in most cases diverse neighborhoods. You can’t dictate where people want to live or who they want to live next to.

The Greeks just happen to have Greeks as neighbors; the Russians, Russians as neighbors. Why then blame them for having “ethnic” churches?

So while some neighborhoods/parishes might be heavily ethnic in some cases, they are one, under the pope.

Ok. Although there are very ethnicities in the Orthodox Church, and even though there are higher concentrations of one group in one area, they are all under Christ.

they aren’t split into autocephelous churches. The Latin rite makes up 98%+ of the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. The other 1 - 2% of the world’s Catholics are from the Eastern rites.

Many in the Eastern Catholic Churches would disagree. The Eastern Catholics do not simply belong to a “rite”; they, in their view, have fully legitimate Churches, each of which is in communion with the Church of Rome and the Latin Church in general.

I’m not sure if you understood my argument. You charged the Orthodox as having “ethnic” autocephalus churches. My response was that there are “ethnic” autocephalus (or, what is of slight difference, autonomous) churches in the Western communion: e.g. the Melkites who have their own Patriarch. There are many more Latin Catholics in the Western communion, but even amongst Latin Catholics there are ethnic concentrations in certain dioceses.

And yes, all these Catholics, both Western and Eastern, are in communion with the Pope, but this is regardless of their ethnicity.

 

[Madaglan]

…continue third post today

Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, to Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephen. a.d. 256.: 6. …But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; … and later on he says also….” And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and **unity of the Catholic Church, **such as Stephen(Pope of Rome) has now dared to make”…
in the 24th chapter Firmilian continues referring to Pope of Rome…”. For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity.”

Respond of the Greek Fathers to the Latins concerning some Quotes from Gregory of Nyssa, Given at the Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence.
“…Gregory the blessed priest of Nyssa, who, apparently, speaks more to your advantage than any of the other Fathers. 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…" The orthodox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once restrict their words by the expression: “if such was his idea,” and conclude their discussion upon Gregory with the following words: "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)."
In another word Saint Gregory is not infallible nor any one man is, besides what he said in your quotation above he didn’t say it Dogmatically if he did then it would have been obvious that he is contradicting the bible.

I dont see anything about Rome or the Pope

Good point. St. Gregory of Nyssa, while very holy and a fine expounder of Scripture and Doctrine, nontheless fell into theological error when he ventured into universal salvation.