Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Voco_proTatiano]

What about it?

anthony022071 wrote:

I wrote:
Whatever you might think, we have here a ‘not-proven’, for none save one has returned to give witness, and such witness given by Our Lord, is that Heaven and Hell belong to ‘Not-Yet’.
So past, present, and pending are ‘Not-Yet’
If Rome chooses to call ‘Not-Yet’ ‘Purgatory’, then is that so inaccurate as to bring The Church to schism?

The Not-Yet comes as soon as we die.
The Church,which is the Body of Christ,does not think that purgatory is not proven. It is a doctrine which the Church has proven from scripture and apostolic tradition.

This may, or may not be so asserted, depending upon how the Latin word ‘statim’ is understood.
This word can mean ‘immediately’ or it can mean anything from ‘next’ to ‘presently’
So there can be a waiting period. The Jews, and Our Lord, of his time might have shared this belief, believed that there was a ‘waiting period’ of about one Earthly year.
Catholics of all shades pray for the souls of the dead, and if that had no prospect of efficacy, then those prayers are in vain.
Whether the dying soul is transported in time to the day of judgement in an instant, is a maybe. It is a not-proven.
What Mother Church believes to be proven, is certainly honestly belived to be proven, but those proofs are based upon earlier proofs which are not universally accepted outside the Church.
I, as an outsider, speak as an outsider, attempting to speak honestly.
I certainly do not imply any dishonesty in the assertions made by Mother Church, only that some outsiders might not accept the chain of reasoning She uses as valid.
If univerally acceptable valid proofs were available, where would Faith be?

 

[steve_b]

The Jews, and Our Lord, of his time might have shared this belief, believed that there was a ‘waiting period’ of about one Earthly year.

The vast majority of Jews however, did not accept the reveleation Jesus gave that illuminated all the types and shadows of the OT for them, and brought the OT to fulfillment in the NT. Jesus revelation ended up seperating Jews one from the other on the fullness of His revelation.
Voco:

Catholics of all shades pray for the souls of the dead, and if that had no prospect of efficacy, then those prayers are in vain.

True.
Voco:

Whether the dying soul is transported in time to the day of judgement in an instant, is a maybe. It is a not-proven.
What Mother Church believes to be proven, is certainly honestly belived to be proven, but those proofs are based upon earlier proofs which are not universally accepted outside the Church.
I, as an outsider, speak as an outsider, attempting to speak honestly.

As you probably know, the CC doesn’t believe in soul sleep. Scripture doesn’t teach soul sleep. So awareness is going on with the soul immediately after death…
Voco:

I certainly do not imply any dishonesty in the assertions made by Mother Church, only that some outsiders might not accept the chain of reasoning She uses as valid.
If univerally acceptable valid proofs were available, where would Faith be?

Here is a Q & A From CA

Will I die or just sleep?

Q: Why is it Scripture speaks of death as sleep (Acts 7:59-60)? A Seventh-day Adventist friend tells me this means we become unconscious at death and don’t “wake up” until the resurrection of the dead.

A: Your Adventist friend is mistaken. The Bible speaks of death as sleep because the body looks as if it’s asleep when we die, not because the soul becomes unconscious.

In the first passage you listed, Acts 7:59-60, Stephen, before “falling asleep” in death, cries out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” That this doesn’t support “soul sleep” is clear from Jesus’ similar remark on the cross (Luke 23:46), which didn’t preclude his telling the Good Thief who died with him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).

If, as the Adventists believe, human beings don’t possess an immaterial spirit which continues after the death of the body, then Stephen’s outcry (as well as Christ’s) is meaningless–there would be no spirit of Stephen for the Lord to receive.

The Bible doesn’t teach the concept of “soul sleep.” Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man, for example, demonstrates that after death both the righteous and the unrighteous are aware of their fates (Luke 16:19-31).

The apostle Paul also teaches conscious existence after death. He speaks of his desire to depart this life and to go on to be with Christ (Phil. 1:23). In 2 Corinthians 12:3-4, Paul tells of his being caught up to paradise and of his uncertainty whether this occurred “in the body or out of the body”–certainly an odd way of speaking if he didn’t believe in an immaterial soul or if he believed in “soul sleep.”

from catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9110qq.asp

 

[packermann]

One thing that convinced me that the Orthodox position cannot be right is the Robber Council, the Second Council of Ephesis in 449 AD.

The Robber Council declared Monophysitism to be the official teaching of the Church.Monophysitism is a heresy that denied the two natures of Christ. Christ only had a divine nature, and not a human nature. After the Council the Pope declared the Council to be invalid.

Now the current Orthodox Church rejects Monophysitism, but for the life of me, I cannot see why. There is no reason for them to reject this Council, since the only reason to reject this Council is because a Pope nullified it. The majority of the bishops did vote for this heresy. Now, the Catholic Church’s position is that a Council is only valid if it is approved by the pope. But the Orthodox reject that. So then, on what basis do they reject the Robber Council?

 

[anthony022071]

[Voco proTatiano]

This may, or may not be so asserted, depending upon how the Latin word ‘statim’ is understood.
This word can mean ‘immediately’ or it can mean anything from ‘next’ to ‘presently’
So there can be a waiting period. The Jews, and Our Lord, of his time might have shared this belief, believed that there was a ‘waiting period’ of about one Earthly year.
Catholics of all shades pray for the souls of the dead, and if that had no prospect of efficacy, then those prayers are in vain.
Whether the dying soul is transported in time to the day of judgement in an instant, is a maybe. It is a not-proven.

The waiting period can also involve a period of purification.
In Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man,the rich man dies and goes to torment by fire. But when when Lazarus dies he goes to the Bosom of Abraham,which is paradise.

What Mother Church believes to be proven, is certainly honestly belived to be proven, but those proofs are based upon earlier proofs which are not universally accepted outside the Church.

Of course. To be outside the Church is to reject the truth of its doctrines.

I, as an outsider, speak as an outsider, attempting to speak honestly.
I certainly do not imply any dishonesty in the assertions made by Mother Church, only that some outsiders might not accept the chain of reasoning She uses as valid.

Well,of course. The Catholic Church is the only Church that has purgatory as a defined and binding doctrine. There’s no point in putting forth another version of purgatory as if there were other traditional versions of purgatory.

If univerally acceptable valid proofs were available, where would Faith be?

Whether a doctrine is based on universally acceptable valid proofs is besides the point. Faith is the substance of things hoped for,the proof of things unseen. Faith is based upon divine revelation.

 

[anthony022071]

One thing that convinced me that the Orthodox position cannot be right is the Robber Council, the Second Council of Ephesis in 449 AD.

The Robber Council declared Monophysitism to be the official teaching of the Church.Monophysitism is a heresy that denied the two natures of Christ. Christ only had a divine nature, and not a human nature. After the Council the Pope declared the Council to be invalid.

Now the current Orthodox Church rejects Monophysitism, but for the life of me, I cannot see why. There is no reason for them to reject this Council, since the only reason to reject this Council is because a Pope nullified it. The majority of the bishops did vote for this heresy. Now, the Catholic Church’s position is that a Council is only valid if it is approved by the pope. But the Orthodox reject that. So then, on what basis do they reject the Robber Council?

bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm
< First of all, ask yourself: What is an Ecumenical Council? By this, I specifically mean the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Why were they held?

Answer: They were political, imperial-sponsored events so as to poll the bishops of the Roman Empire to see what was, and was not, orthodox doctrine. But, was this a Traditional method for determining orthodoxy? No. Rather, it was Constantine’s way of finding out what Christianity taught. And, again, because he had political concerns. He was looking for a glue to hold his Empire together, so it was of monumental importance that all the bishops be in agreement. And, in this, remember Constantine’s situation: The Empire was overflowing with Christians, yet had problems with disunity. By embracing the Church, he assumed that he could fix this in one fell swoop. However, then Constantine found out – much to his surprise – that these Christians weren’t so “unified” after all (i.e., Arianism). And, if that was the case, he needed to find out if Christianity was really (as the orthodox Christians claimed) a universal phenomenon. Otherwise, his plan was pointless.

So, what the bishops taught was never important to the powers behind Nicaea, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II. Rather, the driving force was what could be agreed on (in order to promote the “One Church, One Empire” agenda) just as it was at the illicit “ecumenical councils” :

Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism), Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism), the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine), the numerous “councils” in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox), and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism. All these Councils could have been defined historically as “Ecumenical,” if it were not for Rome’s refusal to cooperate with them.

So, what trumps what? A Council, or Rome’s teaching authority? If the Orthodox wanted to be honest about history, it is clearly Rome’s teaching authority – the very thing “Saint” Photius (being an agent of the Empire himself) denied, so as to foster Byzantine primacy through an unTraditional bid to make the P. of Constantinople “Ecumenical Patriarch,” >

 

[packermann]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm
Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism), Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism), the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine), the numerous “councils” in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox), and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism. All these Councils could have been defined historically as “Ecumenical,” if it were not for Rome’s refusal to cooperate with them.

Excellent point! I was aware of the Robber Council but not the other heresy Councils. So to be Orthodox, who believes that all councils before the schism are infallible, would then have to believe that Jesus was not God (Arianism) and then Jesus was only God and not human (Monothelitism). According to Orthodox belief, these councils would have been valid irregardless of them being rejected by the bishop of Rome. But how can believe in both Arianism and Monothelitism? If Jesus was not God, then Jesus cannot only have a divine nature.

 

[Nicholas82]

Excellent point! I was aware of the Robber Council but not the other heresy Councils. So to be Orthodox, who believes that all councils before the schism are infallible, would then have to believe that Jesus was not God (Arianism) and then Jesus was only God and not human (Monothelitism). According to Orthodox belief, these councils would have been valid irregardless of them being rejected by the bishop of Rome. But how can believe in both Arianism and Monothelitism? If Jesus was not God, then Jesus cannot only have a divine nature.

You are incorrect that any council held before the schism would necessarily be held by the Orthodox Church as infallible. Were that the case the Eastern and Western Churches would have been seperated since the year 449. Also, there is no such word as “irregardless”.

 

[anthony022071]

You are incorrect that any council held before the schism would necessarily be held by the Orthodox Church as infallible. Were that the case the Eastern and Western Churches would have been seperated since the year 449.

But the thing is,the Orthodox have forgotten what made a council ecumenical and infallible.

St. Maximos:
“How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her Pontificate …even as all these things all are equally subject to her (the church of Rome) according to sacerdotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

St. Nicephorus:
“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles.” (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writing to Pope Leo III:
“Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred.” (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

St. Theodore:
“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

 

[anthony022071]

According to Orthodox belief, these councils would have been valid irregardless of them being rejected by the bishop of Rome.

The Orthodox believe that a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid. This means,in effect,that doctrine is subject to public opinion.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm
< Myth #3: An Ecumenical Council must be “Ratified” by the Laity

Myth number 3 is that an Ecumenical Council, even if agreed upon by all the bishops, cannot be ratified without the approval of the laity. In this, Orthodoxy gives the VERY wishy-washy reason of: “Well, we are all the Church.” Well, yes we are, but that’s not how Councils work. For example, the pro-Arian councils after Nicaea were approved by the people of the Eastern Empire (and for over 20 years!). Yet, did that make Arianism orthodox? In the same way, Nicaea was never “approved by the people.” It was declared to be so by the bishops and the Emperor. Same goes for all the other Ecumenical Councils including and especially Chalcedon, which was rejected by the majority of Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, and Palestine. So, where was the mandate from the laity here?

No, my friend Orthodox myth # 3 is a straw man, created to explain away why the Byzantines backed out of Lyon II and Ferrara-Florence – both cases in which ALL the Eastern Patriarchs approved of Western orthodoxy. This idea that “oh, well, the people must approve of it” is IMPERIAL in nature, not Spiritual or Ecclesiastical at all. For goodness sake, what did the average Greek know about the theology of Filioque?! Ah! But, they did know about the differences between East-West civilizations. And, if the “people” disapproved of Lyon and Ferrara-Florence, it wasn’t because the “Holy Spirit” was moving them! >

 

[Peter_J]

Man, this thread is a riot. freesmileys.org/smileys/ad/lolabove.gif

 

[sambos671]

First of all the Eastern Orthodox Church is not false as such but merely schismatic from the Catholic Church. The main reason is that the Bishop of Rome was always the head of the Catholic Church and always had the power in Church law to remove and replace Eastern Patriarchs (though this ability was often blocked by the Byzantine Emperor) and thus breaking from the Pope was splitting from the Catholic Church (the Bishop of Rome described as the source of sacerdotal union by St Cyprian of Carthage in the middle of the 3rd century for example). Also the same Eastern Patriarchs that split from the Catholic Church were quite often in heresy historically speaking and had to be brought back by the Pope and also they were quite often puppets of the Byzantine Emperor.

As for Councils being the deciding factor mostly it was a Council in union with the Pope as many councils of bishops (who were always the people with a vote in councils, it was never a popular vote) backed things like Arianism/Monothelitism etc. but weren’t ratified by the Pope. In fact the Patriarch of Constantinople usurped a lot of power outside of his established boundaries of Asia, Pontus and Thrace by claiming authority over the whole Balkans, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem and even southern Italy and Sicily and calling himself equal to the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch, this all being given to him by the Emperor not Council.

Papal Infallibility was voted for by a Council, albeit a more recent one, though there were early mentions of Papal Infallibility and pronouncements made, even in the third century, possibly earlier, though admittedly it was less specific.

While the Eastern Orthodox have undeniably kept Church practice the same more than the Catholic Church since the split they have changed their views on doctrine and morality by stopping believing in Original Sin and Purgatory (both voted for in the Synod of Jerusalem) and allowing contraception. Furthermore they insist everyone uses the Byzantine Rite which is ridiculous as it is only one of the original Rites still uses in the Catholic Church and more recently created than the Latin, Syrian and Coptic Rites.

Also unlike the Catholic Church (with the Pope) they have nothing unique to say they are the one true Church, as opposed to the Catholic, Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Churches, so that claim doesn’t make as much sense, whereas a claim to be part of the true Church would

I liked your argument. I will have to follow up with some study.

 

[Nicholas82]

I liked your argument. I will have to follow up with some study.

JMBNH might want to follow up that argument with some actual study too, since he seems to think we did at one time but later “stopped believing in Original Sin and Purgatory”… are you kidding me? Your own Church doesn’t even make inane claims like that. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is not older than the Roman Liturgy? Even if you were talking about the TLM you wouldn’t be right… where is this person coming up with this hogwash?

 

[prodromos]

The Orthodox believe that a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid. This means,in effect,that doctrine is subject to public opinion.

No, the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid. This includes the Bishops who were not present at the council, the Priests, Deacons, Monastics and yes, the Laity. This can take many years, even decades, to come to a close.

John

 

[steve_b]

No, the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid. This includes the Bishops who were not present at the council, the Priests, Deacons, Monastics and yes, the Laity. This can take many years, even decades, to come to a close.

John

How did this disagree with Anthony’s point?

Anthony’s point was,

:

The Orthodox believe that a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid. This means,in effect,that doctrine is subject to public opinion.

if the laity (as one of the necessary ingredients) doesn’t accept the council, then public opinion DOES determine for the Orthodox a valid council.

 

[tdgesq]

No, the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid. This includes the Bishops who were not present at the council, the Priests, Deacons, Monastics and yes, the Laity. This can take many years, even decades, to come to a close.

John

This view has always puzzled me. Nearly all of the first seven ecumenical councils anathematize heretical doctrines - from Arianism to Monothelitism - along with the bishops and clergy that supported them. Do the faithful really have to wait and see if a “sufficient” number of clergy and laity approve of these councils before we know if their teachings are binding on the entire Church?

It seems to me that the authority of the institutional Church is effectively nullified if this is a requirement. The faithful are left to suffer for decades under heresy as a result.

 

[prodromos]

How did this disagree with Anthony’s point?

He makes a distinction where there is none.

John

 

[prodromos]

This view has always puzzled me. Nearly all of the first seven ecumenical councils anathematize heretical doctrines - from Arianism to Monothelitism - along with the bishops and clergy that supported them. Do the faithful really have to wait and see if a “sufficient” number of clergy and laity approve of these councils before we know if their teachings are binding on the entire Church?

It seems to me that the authority of the institutional Church is effectively nullified if this is a requirement. The faithful are left to suffer for decades under heresy as a result.

None of the Ecumenical Councils declared themselves to be Ecumenical, it was only subsequent councils which declared them as such.

John

 

[Peter_J]

No, the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid. This includes the Bishops who were not present at the council, the Priests, Deacons, Monastics and yes, the Laity. This can take many years, even decades, to come to a close.

John

How did this disagree with Anthony’s point?

The different is that to say that “a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid” would imply that the laity have a veto power. (Similarly, if I said “a council must be accepted by the Bishop of Worcester, MA, to be valid” that would imply that the Bishop of Worcester has a veto power.)

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. (Re: Laity) This may, perhaps, be a good example of something mardukm has been talking about in the “Papal claims” thread

As I stated, I believe the solution is not a partial giving up of each others’ respective ecclesiologies, but a MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING of each others’ ecclesiologies.

 

[steve_b]

The different is that to say that “a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid” would imply that the laity have a veto power.

That’s exactly what I’m understanding John to be saying