Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[prodromos]

The Orthodox have lost much of a sense of Church at the universal level.

Christ is Risen!

Can you explain what you mean by this? As an Orthodox Christian, I’m afraid I do not see what you describe so I suspect we may understand the terms differently.

John

 

[Hesychios]

So you are claiming the Russian Orthodox are “pompous jerks” when you are making the exact same claim as they are making?

Perhaps you should read some modern historians on this subject. I think you will find that their opinion lines up fairly well with modern historical research.

This on the other hand is just a bit of hubris/nationalistic pride. Its not all that different then the Catholic Church claiming that the (former) Holy Roman Empire was the same as the Roman Empire. So again, this is something the west has claimed before. IMO even the Russian Empire had a stronger connection to Byzantium then the HRE ever had to the actual Roman Empire. But these are issues of political history, not really related to theology or doctrine.

On this point, your friend is just mistaken. The Bishop of Rome stayed in Rome. The Bishop of Constantinople was raised to second place behind the Bishop of Rome by the III and IV councils.

The Patriarch removed the Pope from the Diptychs for several reasons that could have been settled had Rome been interested in talking about it. (Mostly ecclesiology issues). Rather in 1054 Cardinal Humbert came and slammed an excommunication down on the Altar of the Agia Sophia that made outlandish claims(like that the clergy were eunuchs) and accused the Byzantines of removing the Filioque clause from the Creed(!). The schism was not cemented yet until the 4th crusade where the Latin crusaders decided to get themselves involved with local politics rather then going to fight Islam in the Holy Land. If you read the history, you would see that the Emperors usually seemed more interested in reuniting the Church then the Church officials did. So actually it is the opposite, pressure from the Empire was to reunite.

Well I agree with this. The Roman Church lost the ecclesiology of the patristic church and became unbalanced with too much emphasis on the Church at the universal level at the expense of the Church at other levels (like local). The Orthodox have lost much of a sense of Church at the universal level. The two lungs (east and west) are necessary for a balanced Church governance, and so it is of the utmost importance that the Church work to bring about reunion with the Orthodox.

I have to say that this was a very good post in response to Brandon, above. You reveal a sense of balance and solid knowledge when you post on these subjects, as I have seen elsewhere.

However, like our friend Podromos, I am puzzled by your assertion about the “sense of Church at the universal level”. I might be able to agree if I understood what you meant, on the other hand we might agree to disagree and remain friends.

 

[stephraim]

Rather in 1054 Cardinal Humbert came and slammed an excommunication down on the Altar of the Agia Sophia that made outlandish claims(like that the clergy were eunuchs) and accused the Byzantines of removing the *Filioque *clause from the Creed(!).

Cardinal Humbert was a poor choice. Perhaps had a more patient legate been chosen, much would have been averted. Outlandish accusations they were, but Patriarch Photius had also made a few outlandish accusations years earlier. If only both had restrained their pride and tempers and had really understood each other’s respective theology and traditions, much might have been averted.

The schism was not cemented yet until the 4th crusade where the Latin crusaders decided to get themselves involved with local politics rather then going to fight Islam in the Holy Land.

Yes, the actions of the crusaders was highly lamentable!

The Roman Church lost the ecclesiology of the patristic church and became unbalanced with too much emphasis on the Church at the universal level at the expense of the Church at other levels (like local). The Orthodox have lost much of a sense of Church at the universal level. The two lungs (east and west) are necessary for a balanced Church governance, and so it is of the utmost importance that the Church work to bring about reunion with the Orthodox.

Agreed. I am Roman and always will be, believing much in infallibility, yet even I can see that, though there is a universal jurisdiction held by the Bishop of Rome, there should be a difference in how it is exercised. In a teaching capacity, I feel, it should always be utilized. In matters of Church governance, I do feel matters should be handled locally as much as possible.

 

[MarkInOregon]

So we’re agreed that this case does not come under that mantle of papal infallibility.

BTW, what is “hypocrisy” but behavior that is in opposition to what one knows and preaches to be true?

I don’t believe that is quite right. Hypocrisy is professing to believe something that one does not really believe.

So when we sin and fall short of our beliefs–that is not hypocracy because we really believe what we preach–even if we at times fail to live up to it.

hypocrisy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what on does not.

This is a word that is often used incorrectly.

Peace,
Mark

 

[prodromos]

Cardinal Humbert was a poor choice. Perhaps had a more patient legate been chosen, much would have been averted. Outlandish accusations they were, but Patriarch Photius had also made a few outlandish accusations years earlier.

Christ is Risen!

We’re talking almost 200 years earlier, however Patriarch Photius was defending the Church against heresy (which is what the “filioque” clause is in Greek and Bulgarian, regardless of whether it means something different in the less precise language of Latin) and in fact Rome capitulated to Photius’ demands, hardly likely if they were ‘outlandish accusations’.
It is only recent history that has seen the Latin Church reject the genuine council of 879 in favour of the robber council of 869.

John

 

[stephraim]

Christ is Risen!

We’re talking almost 200 years earlier, however Patriarch Photius was defending the Church against heresy (which is what the “filioque” clause is in Greek and Bulgarian, regardless of whether it means something different in the less precise language of Latin) and in fact Rome capitulated to Photius’ demands, hardly likely if they were ‘outlandish accusations’.
It is only recent history that has seen the Latin Church reject the genuine council of 879 in favour of the robber council of 869.

John

Indeed He is risen!

Yes, it was 200 years earlier, and even the Romans know that *filioque *with ekporeusthai is heresy (as St. Maximus the Confessor defends), and Photius was wise to condemn it. His outlandish accusations are local discipline changes that he condemns as heresy, such as Lent beginning Ash Wednesday rather than 3 days earlier, celibate priests, and fasting on Saturdays. Rome did not change her local disciplines on Lent and celibate priests (with fasting changing with due regard for the customs of various times and places over the centuries). Rome also had Photius deposed and Ignatius reinstated.

Rome’s later concession has been much discussed.John VIII’s acknowledgment of him has been described as showing deplorable weakness. On the other hand, by Ignatius’s death the See of Constantinople was now really vacant; the clergy had an undoubted right to elect their own patriarch; to refuse to acknowledge Photius would have provoked a fresh breach with the East, would not have prevented his occupation of the see, and would have given his party (including the emperor) just reason for a quarrel.

 

[Brandon1985]

I am Sorry, I have taken things my roommate and friend have said as the Orthodox doctrine and its not. In his church there is a Family that are not clergy yet seem to have people mostly caticumans (that word may be spelled wrong but the Orthodox on the page should know what i’m trying to say) taking what they say as doctrine instead of asking there priest. These people are telling lies and trying to spread an eccentric orthodoxy that isn’t what Orthodoxy really is. I have had a very good discussion with my priest on the mater of Orthodoxy and came to realize that i don’t have any problem with what they believe but there claim to be the only True Church where as I believe that they are the true church but Catholicism is also the True Church. Other than that I have no arguments about it really, the view on Sin is different but I can’t say is wrong. so again I am sorry, my problem is only with this one isolated group of people who are confrontational about there un-orthodox Orthodoxy (sorry couldn’t help it lol)

 

[Contarini]

“First among equals” is a meaningless phrase.

To anyone not already convinced of a particularly totalitarian brand of Catholicism, a claim like this is deeply repellent and is, in itself, good reason to be less likely accept Catholicism.

To reach a state of mind in which you recognize no authority but absolute and coercive authority is not, in my opinion, a good thing.

Edwin

 

[tdgesq]

To anyone not already convinced of a particularly totalitarian brand of Catholicism, a claim like this is deeply repellent and is, in itself, good reason to be less likely accept Catholicism.

To reach a state of mind in which you recognize no authority but absolute and coercive authority is not, in my opinion, a good thing.

Edwin

Weird. I’ve had an Orthodox priest (ROCOR no less) tell me that the phrase “first among equals” is meaningless. I’ve asked what it means before on these forums. Perhaps you can explain what it means.

 

[MarkInOregon]

To anyone not already convinced of a particularly totalitarian brand of Catholicism, a claim like this is deeply repellent and is, in itself, good reason to be less likely accept Catholicism.

To reach a state of mind in which you recognize no authority but absolute and coercive authority is not, in my opinion, a good thing.

Edwin

Please explain why the statement: ““First among equals” is meaningless” is “deeply repellent” that seems to be going a bit far–indeed it seems to be far less repellent and offensive than the phases “totalitarian brand of Catholicism” and “absolute and coercive authority” which misrepresent papal authority, how it works and how it is used and which show a gross lack up understanding. When you throw out words like “totalitarian” and “coercive”, as you have used them, you are attempting to asscociate papal authority with all the bagage that comes with those words and it is totally inappropriate and unjustified.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Ignatius]

Orthodoxy is definitively NOT false; and The Catholic Church does NOT teach that it is.

 

[tdgesq]

Orthodoxy is definitively NOT false; and The Catholic Church does NOT teach that it is.

The Catholic Church does teach that the Orthodox view of the papacy is false.

 

[Ignatius]

The Catholic Church does teach that the Orthodox view of the papacy is false.

Actually, no. Pope Benedict has said that we cannot expect that the theological understanding of the Papacy in the East will any different than it was for the first 1000 years. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.
I’m sure that you are very knowledgable about these things, but I’m going to have to go with Pope Benedict on this one.

 

[tdgesq]

Actually, no. Pope Benedict has said that we cannot expect that the theological understanding of the Papacy in the East will any different than it was for the first 1000 years. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.
I’m sure that you are very knowledgable about these things, but I’m going to have to go with Pope Benedict on this one.

First of all, it was Karl Ratzinger that said that - many years before he became the Roman Pontiff. Second, it doesn’t mean that the Orthodox understanding of the office of the Bishop of Rome is correct, even if we only consider the first 1000 years. Finally, Pope Benedict has during his papacy expressly declared that the Orthodox churches are defective in this regard. msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094

So I guess it is I who will have to go with Pope Benedict on this one rather than you.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

Orthodoxy is definitively NOT false; and The Catholic Church does NOT teach that it is.

First of all, it was Karl Ratzinger that said that - many years before he became the Roman Pontiff. Second, it doesn’t mean that the Orthodox understanding of the office of the Bishop of Rome is correct, even if we only consider the first 1000 years. Finally, Pope Benedict has during his papacy expressly declared that the Orthodox churches are defective in this regard. msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094
.

MSNBC??? You’re kidding right? They haven’t gotten anything right. As far as The Church goes, they are completely cluless. They do not provide a quote of Pope Benedict saying the they are ‘defective’. Guess why! Because Pope Benedict never said any such thing. They always reinterpret statements into the worst possible light and the most objectionable terms. The ‘defective’ wording is MSNBC’s (intentional?) misinterpretation of the statement.

If you want the Truth, You’ll better going to actual Vatican sources rather than the lamestream media.

Also, Since we were in full communion with the Orthdox for the first 1000 years, their understanding of the primacy of the See of Peter was evidently perfectly acceptable.

 

[tdgesq]

MSNBC??? You’re kidding right? They haven’t gotten anything right. As far as The Church goes, they are completely cluless. You’ll notice that they make those statements but don’t provide quotes. Guess why! Because Pope Benedict never said any such thing.
You’ll do a lot better going to actual Vatican sources rather than the lamestream media.

Ignatius,

You provided no source for your assertion. I at least provided a secondary source. I have read both with my own eyes. You are out of your league and need to stop posting things that mislead Catholics about its position with the Orthodox. I can provide you with the source documents, but I refuse to do so until you provide the original source for your own assertion. Do a little bit of homework yourself before requiring others to do it.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

MSNBC…did not provide a quote of Pope Benedict saying the Orthodox are ‘defective’. The ‘defective’ wording is MSNBC’s.

If you want the Truth, You’ll better going to actual Vatican sources rather than the lamestream media.

You provided no source for your assertion. .

The source is the very MSNBC report that you gave. In that article MSNBC made the claim that Pope Benedict said the Orthdox are ‘defective’ but they provided no quote of Pope Benedict saying that, but the ‘defective’ wording is MSNBC’s.

As I said, If you want the Truth, You’ll better going to actual Vatican sources.

If you choose to drink the MSNBC cool-aid, I must warn you, it is very unhealthy.

 

[tdgesq]

The source is the very MSNBC report that you gave. In that article MSNBC made the claim that Pope Benedict said the Orthdox are ‘defective’ but they provided no quote of Pope Benedict saying that, but the ‘defective’ wording is MSNBC’s.

As I said, If you want the Truth, You’ll better going to actual Vatican sources.

If you choose to drink the MSNBC cool-aid, I must warn you, it is very unhealthy.

Very well. Since you are too lazy to look up your own citation, I will do it for you and then show you exactly where Pope Benedict, and the Catholic Church, disagrees with you.

Here is the citation to Karl Ratzinger to which you appeal. I doubt you’ve ever actually read it: books.google.com/books?id=a6lpzThdPQYC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=doctrine+of+primacy+than+had+been+formulated+and+was+lived+in+the+first+millennium&source=bl&ots=EUVBmpV531&sig=XLwXDSIGpkwYWufWXUBSmPSm9C0&hl=en&ei=G6DUS8KNKor-sQObmb2TCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Ratzinger wrote this before he was even appointed prefect of the CDF in the winter of 1981. His book was published in Germany in 1982.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

FOURTH QUESTION

Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.[15]

“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”.[16] However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.[17]

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html#_ftn17

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION

1. “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter”(72). Among the non-Catholic Churches and Christian communities, there are indeed to be found many elements of the Church of Christ, which allow us, amid joy and hope, to acknowledge the existence of a certain communion, albeit imperfect(73).

This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).

Since, however, communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter’s Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded. The wound is even deeper in those ecclesial communities which have not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. This in turn also injures the Catholic Church, called by the Lord to become for all “one flock” with “one shepherd”(77), in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history.

Rome, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 28th may 1992.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html

 

[tdgesq]

. . . continued

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION
“DOMINUS IESUS”
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY
OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
   . . .
   “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation."

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

Please stop misleading Catholics into believing that there is nothing false about the Eastern Orthodox view of the papacy. And by the way, Pope Benedict does use the word “defect” more than once. Of course, that isn’t the issue. The issue is your claim that there isn’t anything false about the Eastern Orthodox view of the papacy. You are wrong. And you need to stop misleading Catholics about it.

 

[Mickey]

Please stop misleading Catholics into believing that there is nothing false about the Eastern Orthodox view of the papacy.

There** IS NOTHING** false about it. It was the proper understanding for hundreds of years until the ultramontanes started tinkering.