Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John214
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EUSEBIUS (bishop)****
(the father of ecclesiastical history)
‘And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils’ (Ps. 18.14)…By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ **For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ **These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world (Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176).
 
Mickey said:
Really???
All had dignity, honour, and authority. St Peter was a spokesman at times. But all were given the keys. All were given authority.
Click to expand...
Of course they all had authority. But only Peter had authority over the whole Church. As John Chrysosotom said,

“And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

The keys to the kingdom of heaven were communicated from Peter to the other apostles.

Optatus of Milevis:
“For the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” , De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).
 
Mickey said:
Sorry. Neither Western or Eastern Fathers viewed the papacy as do the post schism ultramontanist Latin Church (remember–they were all Orthodox.

That is why you have no choice but to read the fiction into their quotes.
Click to expand...
Talk about reading fiction into the writings of the Church fathers! There was no such entity entitled Orthodox Church prior to the Schism. The Church fathers belonged to the Catholic Church. The faith was called orthodox,the Church was called Catholic.

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).

"The Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).
 
anthony022071 said:
The faith was called orthodox,the Church was called Catholic.
Click to expand...
Amen. Hence today’s Orthodox Catholic Church. 👍
anthony022071 said:
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
St John Chrysosotom
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now

The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.

He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…

Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love…I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it…Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!..what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38)

St John Chrysostom, while certainly granting a large leadership role to Peter, does not consider him to have been made the supreme ruler of the Church.

**Just as Peter was appointed teacher of the world, so was Paul. **

**Just as Peter was a holder of the keys of heaven, so was the apostle John. **

He places the apostles on an equal footing relative to authority.
 
Pope Hadrian VI was successor to Leo X. As Professor of Theology at Louvain, he published the following observations on Infallibility :

“If by the Roman Church is understood its head, that is the Pope, it is certain that it can err, even in those matters which concern the Faith, by publishing heresy in its decisions and decrees. For many Roman Pontiffs have been heretics. Of recent times it is reported that Pope John XXII publicly taught, declared, and commanded to be believed by all, that purified souls do not have the clear vision of God before the Final Judgment.”
 
Does not this imply, asks the Ultramontane, the superiority of the individual thus selected and dis- tinguished? Does not Christ here place the security of the many in the security of the one? If the leader and chief is protected, those who follow him and obey him will be secure. This exposition labours under the double defect of assuming a theory of Peter’s supremacy and of ignoring the historical circumstances which prompted Christ’s words. That the prayer was exclusive is true. But exclusive petition does not necessarily imply the greater superiority of the person prayed for ; it may equally well imply his greater need. Remembering that Peter alone was on the verge of a triple denial, no wonder he became the object of an exclusive prayer. If his confident self-reliance, together with his impulsive temperament, laid him open to perils from which the Twelve were exempt, what else could his Master do than offer special intercession for him ? To build a theory of permanent prerogative as universal teacher on the fact of Christ’s exclusive petition is therefore to forget that the historic circumstances, which elicited our Lord’s concern, suggest a totally different explanation.
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Opposition_to_Papal_Infallibility
 
First of all, although Peter was given the prominent role as the first of the apostles, he was always equal to the other apostles**. Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter.** Moreover the “keys” were given to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). The other apostles were also the foundation upon which the Church was built (Eph. 2:20). If the Roman view is to be believed**, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter. **

…the patristic witness is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of Peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in Church government. The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” **(The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174). **
 
Mickey said:
Let me simplify it further for you.

Knowing that Peter would deny Him, Jesus prayed for him, so that he would not go the way of Judas.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is duely noted. Now give me evidence that Peter was going the way of Judas.
40.png
Mickey:
He was confirmed back into the fold with Jesus Christ’s triple affirmation in the Gospel of St John–atoning for Peter’s triple denial.
Click to expand...
Jesus knew where Peter was. Peter was NEVER out of the fold. In the passage you refer to, Jesus reiterated the commission He gave to Peter back at Ceserea Philippi, and what was said in the upper room in Lk 22… That is, Peter take charge of my Church.
40.png
Mickey:
No. Your interpretation attempts to force the post schism Latin understanding of the papacy onto the Sacred Scriptures.
Click to expand...
History proves the Catholic point. There’s nothing forced. The Father keeps His promise.
 
Mickey said:
Hence today’s Orthodox Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
That’s not what the Church fathers called it. And the Orthodox don’t identify themselves by the word Catholic. Catholic means the other Church.

The reference point of orthodoxy was the teachings of the Church of Rome.
 
1 Cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

1 Peter 2:6-8
Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded. **To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set. ******
 
Papal Infallibility was not known in the early undivided Church of the first millennium. The councils knew nothing of it, nor did the early Church Fathers. It was a doctrine which was promulgated and championed by the Ultramontanists of post schism Rome. It was rejected by the Latin Catholic councils of Constance and Basel. Finally, it was defined by Pius IX in 1870 at the first Vatican council amongst considerable opposition. It has widened the schism between East and West ever since.

The holy Orthodox Catholic Church prays that Rome will return to the fold.
 
Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]
 
Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
Joseph Ratzinger****
 
Hey everyone,

Very interesting posts, I am reading them. I will post more later and give my own opinion!

God bless everyone, and let us all pray for answers and truth here!

John
 
Orthodoxy strives to remain faithful to the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church. As can be seen from a study of the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome did not exercise anything close to the kind of power now claimed by the Popes during this crucial period of Church history. In addition to defining the doctrine of the ancient undivided Church, the councils adopted canons, or rules, to regulate the administration of the Church. Canon VI of the First Ecumenical Council, Nicea I in 325, only granted the Bishop of Rome authority over Churches in the West and affirmed the independence of the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch. In time, the Churches of Constantinople and Jerusalem joined the list of independent or autocephalous Churches. Thus, instead of a centralized Church built on the person of the Pope, the canons of the Ecumenical Councils treat the Church as a federation of autocephalous or independent local Churches. The First Ecumenical Council also mandated that bishops should be elected locally, not appointed by the Bishop of Rome, as in modern Roman Catholic practice, at least in America. As described by the canons, the bishop of each province governed the affairs of his province, led by the chief bishop, or Metropolitan, of the capital of the province. However, the Metropolitans did not have unlimited authority like the modern Pope, but were required to submit to the authority of a council of all the bishops of the province. The canons further stipulated that the council of bishops, now called a Holy Synod, must meet at least twice a year. The Third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus, established the principle that when a local Church reaches maturity, it should receive its independence and the right to govern its own affairs, by recognizing the independence of the Church of Cyprus in 431.
Father John W. Morris, Ph.D
 
Did the Church of Rome, prior to 1870, believe that the Pope was Infallible?
No! For example, Keenan’s Controversial Catechism, a Catechism used in all the schools of Ireland, published in 1860, stated about Papal Infallibility: ‘This is a Protestant invention; it is no Article of the Christian faith.’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top