Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Mickey]

Did you mean to say made by Pope Pius IX?

The quote is a response made by Pius IX. It was published in an article in the Guardian. Is that not a UK publication?

April 11, 1866–you are also welcome to find it at the Library archives.

Citations by those who are not friendly to Rome, does not mean that the quote is fabricated. However, I also would like to know for sure. I will research this also. If I find it is fabricated, I will apologize, rescind my remarks, and erase the quote from my data files–never to be used again.

I know that the Guardian was started in the early to mid 1800’s.

 

[steve_b]

The quote is a response made by Pius IX. It was published in an article in the Guardian. Is that not a UK publication?

April 11, 1866–you are also welcome to find it at the Library archives.

C’mon Mickey, where did YOU find the quote?

Mickey:

Citations by those who are not friendly to Rome, does not mean that the quote is fabricated.

That’s true. And I’m not saying it was fabricated. I just want to see it, and see it in context.

Mickey:

However, I also would like to know for sure. I will research this also. If I find it is fabricated, I will apologize, rescind my remarks, and erase the quote from my data files–never to be used again.

I know that the Guardian was started in the early to mid 1800’s.

As I said previously, if the pope said in an address what you quoted, It should be easy to find… wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Mickey]

C’mon Mickey, where did YOU find the quote?

I already told you. It has been buried in my files for a long time. Do you want me to make something up?

That’s true. And I’m not saying it was fabricated. I just want to see it, and see it in context.

Me too. Just like the early editions of the Keenan catechism, I am going to attempt to verify the accuracy.

It should be easy to find… wouldn’t you agree?

From 1866? I dunno about that.

 

[steve_b]

the issue at hand still needs to be addressed. You said that had the EO been in communion with the Pope, then things may have turned out differently.

The whole point is, the East should NOT be out of communion with the pope.

John:

I do not understand exactly what you mean by this, are you saying that the EO has not evangelized as much as the RCC has?

Or that the EO has not sustained its population as well as the RCC?

Isn’t this all a function of size? 1 in 5 people on the planet are Catholics.

John:

Ok, so you are saying that had the Eastern Church stayed in communion with Rome, that somehow the Pope would have prevented the Muslims from even having been able to conquer the East? That is fine, but please explain exactly how you expect the Pope to have been able to do this.

You’re looking at this as if there is zero sum consequences to division.

John:

(Keep in mind that the East did attempt to rejoin Rome, for the explicit purpose of preventing the Muslims from taking over, councils in 1200s and 1400s Florence, and they did anyways).

But John of Ephesus put an end to THAT. Plus the sentiment was “better the turban of the sultan than the tiara of the pope.” And so it happened.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

John:

Finally Steve, do not think that simply because I challenge your position that it means that I disagree or that I am simply out to “disprove” the RCC. I comment where I can, and my intention is to get a strong answer for why the EO is at fault and the RCC position is the fullness of the Truth.

If you want to see how popes deal with big problems, in context, while big problems are in progress, read some of the encyclicals of Pius IX which I posted for Mickey.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3710061&postcount=479
I put all Pius IX’s writings in chronological order. Check out #'s 16, 18, 19, 20, and 21 for example. Don’t forget to look at all references at the end of each document. These encyclicals aren’t long. a quick read actually. But it gives you an idea how the popes address issues and encourage action from the entire Church towards the issue at hand.

 

[steve_b]

I already told you. It has been buried in my files for a long time. Do you want me to make something up?

Heaven forbid

Mickey:

From 1866? I dunno about that.

I pulled up ALL his encyclicals from the 1800"s with no problem

 

[Ignatios]

ANTHONY:

Then why would you bring up quotes from those Church fathers who said that Peter was the Rock,as if they only said that the Rock was Peter’s faith? …

I bring up Quotes from those Church fathers who said that Peter was the Rock of Faith, so we can restore the distortion that you have been trying to apply to them in order to justify the claim of the Papacy, And to show the true meaning for their words, thoughts.

anthony:

I already know that those fathers used both interpretations.

then why you only made mention of “Peter the Rock” or however they said it, and leftout their Interpretation when they explained that it is the faith ???

anthony:

But the literal interpretation logically comes first,just as literal definitions of words come first.

And just where you got that Logic from? what came first is a Title of a subject, and then the commentary, the explanation, or the interpretation.

And what you did is, you posted the Title of the things that it is being discussed, then you left the interpretations out…and you applied your own to it…

“Just as literal definition of words come first”??? you said.

So did you mean by that, that Peter was a real rock, according to what you have said, Peter is not a flesh and blood or “Human” but he is a “Literal Rock”, this is the “LITERAL DEFINITION OF THE WORD” …man you are steping allover yourself now!!!

anthony:

Epiphanius…For in him are found all subtle questions of faith. He was aided by the Father so as to be (or lay) the Foundation of the security (firmness) of the faith.

Epiphanius says that in him are found all questions of faith.

Still dont see where it says that the Church was built on peter in WHAT YOU HAVE Posted EARLIER.
As for the the second post below I will answer it when I get to it at the bottom.

anthony:

That means Peter! Peter is where the fullness of the faith is to be found. Epiphanius says that he ,meaning Peter,is the foundation of the security of the faith. So there it is – Peter is the Rock of the faith.

So you are the interpreter now, Do you Speak Greek, or can you interpret the GREEK MIND??? Dont think so…Not in a zillion year.
…Then you said"…* Peter is where the fullness of the faith is to be found.*" ??? Boy you really messed up now!!! …what you are saying here that the other Apostles dont have the fullness of faith, then CHRIST have done a half pass job on them!!!

Or what is it? they were half Apostles???..

IS this what the Roman Catholic church teaches???.

anthony:

The legates were part of the Council. The Eastern bishops signed on to the legates’ words.

JUST show me what the Bishops sign on,
What are the words that they signed on??? I will not keep refuting you …I will let you do this for yourself…
they didnt sign on what you implied concerning the"…the rock and foundation of the Catholic …" they signed against Discorus!!! PLEASE go back and read their statement.
What you have posted is your statement NOT theirs, then when you done read the Canons thats what the Bishops signed on. REEEEEEEEAD.

anthony:

What Eastern father or bishop of the pre-Schism Church ever rejected Rome’s interpretation of Matthew 16,18?

Please REEEEEAD…go back and read what myself and half a dozen people posted concerning this…but to be nice I will tell one…that is the most brilliant doctor and father and theologian of YOUR CHURCH…AUGUSTINE …go back and read it…Ahhhh

anthony:

You’re not making a good case for my supposed misquotes and distortions.
Texts from Vespers and Matins of June 29 & 30 from the Byzantine-Slavonic Menaion (Feasts of the Martyrdom of Sts Peter and Paul and of the Synaxis of the Twelve Apostles):
…

I must admit I think you are going to win by making me quit out of frustration of your Ignorance (literaly not offensevly)…the Following from the site of the melkite CATHOLIC CHURCH, READ IT:

“…established a general commemoration for all of them on the day after the commemoration of the Glorious and **First-Ranked among the Apostles Peter and Paul.**Synaxis of the Holy Apostles .”

ALSO …

"…The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Paul …"

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

Epiphanius said it here:

To him then did the Father reveal His true Son; and the same (Peter) furthermore reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting in the First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are heretics and heresiarchs. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith. He was aided by the Father so as to be (or lay) the Foundation of the security (firmness) of the faith. He (Peter) heard from the same God, ‘feed my lambs’; to him He entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master". (Epiphanius, T. ii. in Anchor).

Origen:

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail… Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“…all the sects are truly ‘gates of hell,’ but ‘They will not prevail against the rock,’ that is, the truth.” - Epiphanius of Salamis, Against Pneumatomachi, 3, 74

also from Epiphanius …For we need to have an** understanding of the theory or intention in order to possess the ability to interpret the meaning of each suggestion **(quoted in Loci Theologici, p. 25) …Anthony he is speaking to you my freind.

Now to Origen:
BOOK XII
10. THE ANSWER OF PETER

…And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church…

Also…

11.THE PROMISE GIVEN TO PETER NOT RESTRICTED TO HIM, BUT APPLICABLE TO ALL DISCIPLES LIKE HIM.
But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them?..
Also read this one if you care to gain some knowledge:
12. EVERY SIN–EVERY FALSE DOCTRINE IS A
“GATE OF HADES.”

Ignatius (c.135, E),1.33.
I do not as Peter adn PAUL Issue COMMANDMENTS to you.
As early as the 100s there is a clear sign of the equality of both Peter and PAUL.

Polycarp (c. 135, E), 1.33.

For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul.

Irenaeus(c. 180,E/W), 1.414.
…While Peter and PAUL were preaching at Rome, and LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHURCH…

Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.555.
…The Teaching of the APOSTLES, encompassing the ministry of Paul…

Tertullian(c. 197, W), 3.254.
…They accordingly even gave him (Paul) " the right hand of fellowship" as a sign of their agreement with him, and they arranged among themselves a distribution of office_not a diversity of Gospel…It is a happy fact that Peter is on the same level with Paul…

ORIGEN(c. 248, E), 4.425.
…PAUL WAS, AFTER JESUS, THE FOUNDER OF THE CHURCHES THAT ARE IN CHRIST….

CYPRIAN (c. 250, W), 5.283.
Let them also follow the example of the APOSTLE PAUL … He did not proudly arrogate anything to himself.

Disputation of Archelaus and Manes (c. 320, E), 6.229; see also 3.646.
That best master-builder of christ, Paul himself, has laid our foundation, that is, the foundation of the Church. and he was put in trust of the law, ordaining Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops.

Anthony, the night is too short to sit down and type for you the numerous quotes of teh fathers and historians of the Church, but that is only the icing on the cake.
for every quote you put down I can put at least three to counter it and you will run out after quoting seventeen fathers. but I can go on all night long.

 

[John214]

First, briefly on the matter of the Keenan Catechism, and on the supposed 1866 letter of Pope Pius IX.

Right now, we are not aware of the veracity of these claims (granted the internet is often a poor resource for digging up things of this nature). Perhaps the only way to solve this is to search archives in a library, or contact someone who is knowledgable on these matters.

Let’s throw a question out. If these sources are verified, what, if anything will it do to the RCC position?

Personally, I don’t know that it will do much. It may illustrate a popular belief at the time, it may even illustrate where a Pope was wrong, but honestly speaking, the Pope was not speaking ex cathedra, and Kennan could very well have made a mistake. Perhaps we can have thoughts on this from the Orthodox and RCC sides?

 

[Pons]

Peter was the Rock of Faith,

Christ the Rock proclaims the man Simon to be the rock he will build his community upon (chiefly upon him, among the general foundations of the disciples) for his confession of rock-solid faith, and will make him rock-solid in his resoluteness as well…

Anything wrong with the statement?

 

[John214]

Steve,
Steve B:

The whole point is, the East should NOT be out of communion with the pope.

…well, this is the purpose of this thread, to see where and if the East should be in communion with the Pope. But in regards to our discussion, right now, we are only trying to determine if it would have made much of a difference if the East had been in communion with Rome at the time of the Muslim invasions. Especially, whether it would have prevented the “fall of the East”.
Steve B:

Isn’t this all a function of size? 1 in 5 people on the planet are Catholics.

Not really, majority does not decide Truth (the RCC should be acutely aware of this). Muslims now outnumber Catholics, does that mean that Islam is true and Catholicism is false? Also, at the time of the division between East and West, the East was larger than the West, does that mean that the East was right until the West overcame them in membership? Also, I think quality of membership is by far more important that quantity (though both are utterly irrelevant in discerning the truth).
Steve B:

You’re looking at this as if there is zero sum consequences to division.

No, I am saying that there probably would have been little effect on the East if not detrimental effects (practically speaking). This means nothing about whether the RCC or EO is true or not.
Steve B:

But John of Ephesus put an end to THAT. Plus the sentiment was “better the turban of the sultan than the tiara of the pope.” And so it happened.

Keep in mind here the Sacking of Constantinople.
Steve B:

If you want to see how popes deal with big problems, in context, while big problems are in progress, read some of the encyclicals of Pius IX which I posted for Mickey.

I know how Popes often deal with big problems, and it is often very admirable. This does not mean that the capturing of the East would have been prevented.

 

[steve_b]

Steve,

…well, this is the purpose of this thread, to see where and if the East should be in communion with the Pope. But in regards to our discussion, right now, we are only trying to determine if it would have made much of a difference if the East had been in communion with Rome at the time of the Muslim invasions. Especially, whether it would have prevented the “fall of the East”.

No, I am saying that there probably would have been little effect on the East if not detrimental effects (practically speaking). This means nothing about whether the RCC or EO is true or not.

I know how Popes often deal with big problems, and it is often very admirable. This does not mean that the capturing of the East would have been prevented

May I suggest reading this encyclical. As a convenience, print out the internal references at the bottom of the encyclical 1st. That way, as you’re reading, and you come accross a reference, you’ll have the explanation for quick reference. Then let’s talk

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm

 

[steve_b]

Steve,

Keep in mind here the Sacking of Constantinople.

Keep in mind, Constantinople was sacked AFTER Mark of Ephesus stirred up the East to reject Florence.

Originally I said John of Ephesus uchops! mea culpa

 

[prodromos]

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.txt

[198] Thus, for instance, in Keenan’s Controversial Catechism, as
published by the ‘Catholic Publishing Company,’ New Bond Street,
London, the pretended doctrine of papal infallibility was expressly
denied as ‘a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic
faith; no decision of the Pope can oblige under pain of heresy, unless
it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the
Bishops of the Church.’ But since 1871 the leaf containing this
question and answer has been canceled and another substituted. So says
Oxenham, in his translation of Doellinger on the Reunion of Churches,
p. 126, note. The same is true of many German and French Catholic
Catechisms.

 

[natsclem]

VociMike,

You only said that the rebuke was over behavior not teaching. Paul says in the verse before that due to Peter’s hypocrisy he was leading all the other Christians into hypocrisy as well.

Tomster,

Your clarification is noted.

Even Paul was also guilty of hypocrisy when he circumcised Timothy because “they” know that his father is Greek.

 

[prodromos]

Also:
books.google.com/books?id=0ZRDrZcM3zUC&pg=PA111&dq=Pope+in+himself+to+be+infallible&lr=&sig=WKLxyGFp2x385zdSZWa3PO1REwg

books.google.com/books?id=RuKCOh4w1FEC&q=Pope+in+himself+to+be+infallible&dq=Pope+in+himself+to+be+infallible&lr=&pgis=1

a search on books.google.com gives many books from the mid to late 1800’s which make reference to this article in Keenan’s Controversial Catechism. Unfortunately most are only snippet view.

 

[John214]

Steve,

Regarding your citation, I looked at it, I am not exactly sure what kind of link you want me to make between this and our discussion about how the Papacy might have saved the EO from being conquered. Perhaps you can highlight the exact parts of this encycical and explain why they make any bearing on our conversation.
Steve B:

Keep in mind, Constantinople was sacked AFTER Mark of Ephesus stirred up the East to reject Florence.

Are you sure you have your dates right? The sacking of Constantinople was in 1204, the first council which attempted reunification was at Lyons in 1274, the second at Florence was in 1439. The saying, “better the turban than the tiera” began after the 1274 council and I believe was first said by the Emperorer’s sister (no doubt greatly influenced by the sacking of Constantinople)

Also, Podromos,

Thanks to your citations and a lack of counter citations, I believe it has been sufficiently established that the original Keenan’s Catechism did say that Papal Infallibility was a Protestant invention, and that it was later changed.

 

[Mickey]

but honestly speaking, the Pope was not speaking ex cathedra, and Kennan could very well have made a mistake. Perhaps we can have thoughts on this from the Orthodox and RCC sides?

You are correct John. That is how the RCC would address these issues.

The Orthodox would view Pius IX’S statements as extremely disturbing and the Keenan Catechism as hypocritical.

 

[steve_b]

You are correct John. That is how the RCC would address these issues.

The Orthodox would view the Keenan Catechism as hypocritical.

If you look at the 2 quotes you gave, (emphasis mine)

:

#1
Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church.
Keenan Catechism

#2
Q. Do you here suppose the teachers individually infallible?
A. The Pope as the constant head of the Church we hold infallible in decisions ex cathedra: but not exempt from falling into personal sin. The various bishops are neither individually infallible or sinless. But we may argue that if the Pope and the various bishop teach any particular doctrine,—men who have had no motive for such, do actually teach the very same truths, then we maintain, by all laws of human evidence or moral certainty, that their combined testimony to the existence of any doctrine infallibly proves its truth.
Revised Keenan Catechism third edition

Did the bishops approve the teaching mentioned in quote #1 reflected in quote #2? Yes

Therefore, putting this possitively,
obedience to correction from the Church is evidenced in the 2nd quote.

that’s not hypocritical.

 

[Mickey]

that’s not hypocritical.

Obedience to correction?

 

[Mickey]

#1
Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church.
Keenan Catechism

By the way, they had it right the first time.

#1 is explaining the process of the Ecumenical Council as the undivided Church always knew it.