• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Have a Laugh...

Bobby

Archon
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
2,442
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Raleigh, NC
Ok, so it's Monday morning, and you need a laugh.

Read the following and tell me how many wrong 'facts' you find.

Winner gets a prize.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp


Bobby
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,346
Reaction score
77
Points
48
Age
56
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Faith
Catholic
Jurisdiction
Ukrainian Archdiocese of Philadelphia
The writer is right that the root of the conflict is rivalry between eastern and western empires that no longer exist. But his blame is one-sided, damning the Byzantine emperor.

Errors (I’m sure our resident experts including the theological students will find lots more):

1.
During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor.
What about Popes Liberius and Honorius?

2.
Patriarch Cerularius
Nitpick: shouldn't that read ‘Patriarch Michael’?

3.
The current Eastern Orthodox communion dates from the 1450s, making it a mere six decades older than the Protestant Reformation.
Foul! Probably a semantic game — what we would call the Orthodox communion pre-1054 (and in that period it was called Orthodox) and from Ferrara-Florence until the, yes, Turkish-sanctioned break in communion in 1473, this writer probably would call Byzantine Catholic churches. The Turks restarted the schism because, like the Communists in Eastern Europe 430 years later, they didn't want their Christian subjects in a church under a foreign head that they couldn't control. They could and did, however, control the patriarch of Constantinople.

4.
While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority.
Catholics and Orthodox use the word ‘ecumenical’ differently. To the latter, AFAIK, the word refers to the emperor and his government in Constantinople (the oikoumenh being the whole empire), much like ‘federal’ in American usage means the national goverment in Washington, DC. As there has been no emperor since 1453, ‘ecumenical’ councils are impossible. However, 1) Archimandrite Serge (Keleher), a Byzantine Catholic, says the Orthodox actually accept nine councils but I forget which ones the other two are, and 2) there have been all-Orthodox councils that have roughly equivalent standing to the big seven convened by the emperor: Jassy and Jerusalem, which condemned the errors of the then-new Protestant heresies.

5.
In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not. In Luke 22:28-32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31-32).
OK, for argument’s sake, if the papacy is of the esse of the Church, why isn’t the elevation of a new Pope a sacrament?

6.
in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together
Wrong. They took the first part of a Mass at St Peter’s, Rome, together — the Mass of the Catechumens, or ‘Liturgy of the Word’ in Novus Ordo talk. They did not concelebrate the Eucharist.
 

Neo Tobiah

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Points
0
After the western Roman Empire collapsed in A.D. 476, the eastern half continued under the title of the Byzantine Empire
This is misleading, though the authors probably don't even realise it. The citizens of the east didn't go by the title "Byzantine Empire," but thought of themselves as ROMANS. They may have been a bit confused about which language and culture they were to use in which contexts, but they certainly thought themselves as Roman as... well... the people of the "Western Roman Empire". The above is often a tactic--sometimes subconsciously carried out--to help create a gap between the east and west: after all, if you're gonna make a "big deal" about and try to add significance to "Rome," (as a concept) you can't have the "Roman Empire" in the West falling and that in the East standing.

The patriarch of that city had jurisdiction over the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and served under the emperor, who ruled those lands with military might.
Since when? There are multiple examples in Church history of someone from one of these other patriarchates coming to Constantinople and displacing the Patriarch there. Then sounds more like an Eastern Pope concept, which of course never happened. I can see how some Latin Catholics might get that impression with some of the things said and done by Patriarchs of Constantinople (e.g., the taking of the title "Ecumenical" in spite of the strong objections from Old Rome), but there was never anything in the Eastern Church like their was in the Western Church regarding the top of the hierarchy.

In the East, the emperor wielded tremendous influence in church affairs.
Lol! And he didn't in the west? He called the Ecumenical Councils, gave theological discourse, summoned whatever bishops he wanted which were forced to appear before him as quickly as possible (including the Pope), etc. This power wasn't always good, and the Emperor probably had much more power than was good to have, but to say (or imply) that the west was free of this would be totally inaccurate. Just in the past week I've read once about a Pope being summoned to Rome and put under house arrest (under Justinian), and once about a Pope of Rome being deposed by the Emperor of the Empire (I think it was during the Arian controversy, and instead of objecting to this, the west simply elected a new Pope).

Some emperors even claimed to be equal in authority to the twelve apostles, and as such claimed to have the power to appoint the patriarch of Constantinople.
The Orthodox Church itself claims that some were equal to the apostles, though it doesn't just make this claim of Roman Emperors. Regarding appointments, it is true that Constantinople had too much power in some respects, and one of them was probably the ability to depose, exile, etc. bishops.

Although the two offices were legally autonomous, in practice the patriarch served at the emperor’s pleasure.
Uh huh. Tell that to Chrysostom. This above makes it sound like the Patriarch simply did what the Emperor instructed. The Emperor no doubt had a good deal of influence, but unless the Patriarch was totally spineless he wasn't "serving the Emperor's (or Empress's) pleasure."

... but it is difficult to withstand the designs of power-hungry or meddlesome emperors with armed soldiers at their disposal.
Popes of Rome know this from personal experience as well.

During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor.
I suppose that depends on how one looks at things. I've seen incredible claims along these same lines, like: "Rome never fell into corruption or heresy, while the East was always falling". It's all a matter of perspective; I can think of numerous instances of Rome falling: and of Bishops giving them "what for" because of it!

The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343,
The excommunication having about as much weight as was assigned to it. In other words, if the Church accepted the excommunication as proper, it was valid, if they didn't, then it wasn't valid. Rome did not have the power, in itself, to excommunicate whoever it wanted from the entire Church. The most it could do was cease communion through excommunication and hope that the other Local Churches affirmed and followed along.

Ironically, in the Church’s eighth-century struggle against the Iconoclastic heresy (which sought to eliminate all sacred images), it was the pope and the Western bishops mainly who fought for the Catholic practice of venerating icons, which is still very much a part of Orthodox liturgy and spirituality.
And they aren't in Catholics practice very much... strange. I'm not sure exactly what the word "mainly" means here, if they mean in actual numbers then I agree. However, there were always defenders of the Icons in the East, even if they were sometimes hard to hear.

The Norman conquest of southern Italy helped touch off the Great Schism between Eastern and Western Christendom. When the Catholic Normans took over the Byzantine-Rite Greek colonies in southern Italy, they compelled the Greek communities there to adopt the Latin-Rite custom of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. This caused great aggravation among the Greek Catholics because it went against their ancient custom of using leavened bread.
So it's only a "custom"? But this demonstrates the typical Roman Catholic position. "We want to be friends, and we'll condescend and allow your customs...." (unless it rubs them the wrong way, like with the marriage of Priests in Eastern Catholic America). I wonder if this article will mention the Latin Crusaders forcing people who are actually living in the East to change their traditions--sometimes under penalty of death by the sword--as well. I suppose not.

This was not, however, the actual break between the two communions. It’s a popular myth that the schism dates to the year 1054 and that the pope and the patriarch excommunicated each other at that time, but they did not.
Wow! The author actually got something right! A few things right actually, and all at the same time.

However, it's misleading to call it a "myth" since very few actually say that we must accept 1054 as the date of the split. Usually it is given for the sake of convenience since explaining when exactly the split occured would be a long--if not impossible--process.

There was no single event that marked the schism, but rather a sliding into and out of schism during a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations. The East’s final break with Rome did not come until the 1450s.
Well, if you're going to date the split to the 1450's then the problems lasted longer than "several centuries". More like a millenium.

Under pressure from Muslims, most of the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome, and this is the split that persists to this day.
Uh huh, and those DOZENS of reunion attempts between 1054 and the Council of Florence, what were those, family get togethers? You were right, this IS good for a laugh :)

The current Eastern Orthodox communion dates from the 1450s, making it a mere six decades older than the Protestant Reformation.
The laughs just keep coming! I guess since some Orthodox say that Catholicism didn't start until the 11th century or later, some Catholics have decided to make similar polemical claims.
 

Neo Tobiah

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Two subsequent events, one external, the other internal, reduced the patriarch of Constantinople’s status to nearly that of a figurehead.
Unfortunately, the corrupt politics of 19th and 20th century Patriarchs in Constantinople have revived it's power. That man Bartholomew is no exception to this power/prestige seeking. (now I didn't make claims about him being a free mason or any such thing! I only admit what I think is true, he has wordly ambitions that interfere with his ecclesiastical duties).

It's interesting that the author focuses on Constantinople in the article, though this is a typical--if perhaps subconciously executed--tactic of Latin Catholics. They ignore the fact that ALL the east turned from the Pope of Old Rome, not just Constantinople. It's much easier to make Rome look like the stout defender of the faith and Constantinople the poor, failing Patriarchate. I very rarely see, for instance, discussion by Latin Catholics about the relationship between Rome and North Africa. This is understandable as the North Africans have a number of times severed communion with the Pope, even issued an excommunication, and have had numerous theologians who attacked the Pope's theological position. Nah... they'll just stick with discussion of the see they think they can best paint in a bad light, rather than expressing the depth of the truth.

Another blow that weakened the patriarch’s authority came from Russia. Ivan the Great assumed the title of "Czar" (Russian for "Caesar"). Moscow was then called the "third Rome," and the Czar tried to assume the role of protector for Eastern Christianity.
And thank God for Russia!

With the collapse of the patriarchal system, the Eastern church lost its center and fragmented along national lines.
Which is misleading. There had ALWAYS been local Churches (the Church at Rome, the Church at Constantinople, the Church at Caesarea, etc.). Nothing about the SUBSTANCE of the Church changed, the only thing that changed was the outward manifestation of the hierarchy, which effected Church administration, and did not (if it was done properly) interfere with the Faith.

Russia claimed independence from the patriarch of Constantinople in 1589, the first nation to do this. Other ethnic and regional splintering quickly followed, and today there are eleven independent Orthodox churches. The Russian Orthodox church dominates contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy, representing seven-eighths of the total number of Orthodox Christians.
I'm not sure where he gets either number, both 11 and 7/8ths seem wrong to me.

Many today, both Orthodox and Catholics, believe this controversy [filioque] was a tempest in a teapot... Today there is every hope that the equivalence of the two formulas can be formally recognized by all parties and that the filioque controversy can be resolved.
Sure there is every hope. Their were similar hopes throughout the last 1,200 years. Yet, somehow I doubt the leaders of Today (on both sides) are the ones to resolve the problem.

The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and "the seven ecumenical councils"
Huh? The Orthodox teach what the apostles taught (while actual members of the Church might, the Church herself--which is the theanthropic body of Christ--don't "base our teachings" on something) Scripture, the Councils, and traditions are manifestations and wonderful springs of knowledge that emenate from this source of apostolic truth, but they are not infallible in themselves. Put another way, Ecumenical Councils, for instance, are only infallible if and when they express (not determine!) the apostolic witness. Traditions, to, are only correct insofar as they express the apostolic witness: tradition is not a seperate source of authority in Orthodoxy, but is rather a viewable manifestation of the original and only source of authority in Orthodoxy, the teachings of Jesus Christ which were taught by the Apostles and the Apostolic Church. What's more, the Orthodox accept as doctrinally binding numerous decisions after 787. The author of this article quotes from Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Church" serveral times, so he must be aware of this fact, for Bishop Kallistos goes over some of the more important documents since 787 in Orthodoxy which have doctrinal signficance.

Some Orthodox--particularly Constantinple--have also tried having another Ecumenical Council, but thus far without success. There have been multiple pre-council meetings to discuss what issues were important at the time, but the Ecumenical Council--thank God!--never materialized. (I thank God because Constantinople had everything weighed so that it had the largest representation, and it's opposition had no representation. Fr. Justin Popovich discusses this in a text he was asked to write, which is available on the internet)

One of the reasons the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical. In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is "accepted by the church" as such. But that test is unworkable: Any disputants who are unhappy with a council’s result can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority.
Lol! This is EXACTLY what Rome did with a number of the councils, sometimes not accepting them for CENTURIES! :)

Since the Eastern schism began, the Orthodox have generally claimed that the pope has only a primacy of honor among the bishops of the world, not a primacy of authority.
Um, that was an early ecumenical council that first said that (at least textually), it wasn't started at the time of the "schism".

But the concept of a primacy of honor without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible.
That's right. Our authority is Jesus Christ, who is the head of His church, the divine-human body of Christ.

At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honor among them.
Again, a matter of perspective. I look at Peter in the NT and see a zealous man, sometimes without knowledge. A man that Jesus knew could lead the Church, even in the face of terrible suffering. I see nothing akin to a papal-like power, however.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not.
The church has the keys, not Peter. (Peter's FAITH is the rock, and the Church which holds to that faith has the power to bind and loose, has the keys, etc.). Jesus is seen in revelation as holding the keys: this is exactly what Orthodoxy teaches, that Jesus is the head of the Church, and so both he and the Church can simultaneously be holding the keys, simultaneously binding and loosing, etc. This is a far cry from the Latin Catholic representative on earth, vicar of Christ, theology. Ignatius is surely lamenting the way some of his words are being misused.

In John 21:15-17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"—in other words, is Peter more devoted to him than the other disciples?
I don't have time to deal with every Catholics proof text. Suffice to say, the Orthodox disagree with the Catholic position, and there's enough literature out there on the Orthodox position to keep you reading for years.

While Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are separate for the moment, what unites us is still far greater than what divides us,
Can darkness be yoked with light? Can humanism be combined with christocentrism? We have EXTERNAL similarities, nothing more. Someone asked on another thread whether it would be better to marry a Catholic (than, say, a Baptist). The answer is that it doesn't matter a whole lot. Truth be told, if you aren't going to marry Orthodox, you'd be better off marrying someone who is "spiritual" but hasn't fixed her soul on one spiritual path. The Fathers speak of the soul as being something that can be "imprinted" or "written on," and that once it is written on, it is hard to change the writing if it is wrong. It is much easier, the Fathers teach, to write correct belief and correct practice onto a soul that does not have that much wrong already inscribed.

and there are abundant reasons for optimism regarding reconciliation in the future.
I wish we could reunite, and I am willing to repent for Orthodoxy's errors (and we've had many). I'm just waiting for the Catholics to repent and cast off their theological innovations.

and in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together.
The truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant. The fact that Orthodox altars are used for the heterodox "eucharist" (both Anglican and Catholic) is itself offensive.
 

Bobby

Archon
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
2,442
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Raleigh, NC
3 excellent replies...anyone else care to take a stab? Take your chance! I am going to (with poster's permission) put them together and send them to Catholic Answers! And as always, a prize for the best post!

Bobby
 

Orthodoc

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
USA
Quote:The current Eastern Orthodox communion dates from the 1450s, making it a mere six decades older than the Protestant Reformation.


The laughs just keep coming! I guess since some Orthodox say that Catholicism didn't start until the 11th century or later, some Catholics have decided to make similar polemical claims.

---------------------

You are right it is a laugh. But now maybe those in this site who think I am a stuborn pain in the --- when it comes to the term 'Catholic' and my right to not only use it to identify myself as an Orthodox, but my objection to allow the Church of Rome to use it exclusively.

Orthodoc
 

surferuke

Jr. Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Baja California, Mexico
Website
www.uocofusa.org
It is good to read these responses (defenses). It's all a good refresher. Maybe we should compile them all together and send them to the Catholic Answers people to defend the Holy Church. They are highly respected in the Catholic world, and if people read these falsehoods, its would make us look bad, wrong, and even a touch of heretical.

If they have Catholic Answers, then we should have Orthodox Answers.

just a thought.......

surferuke
 

Bobby

Archon
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
2,442
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Raleigh, NC
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

surferuke!!!!

INcredible IDEA!!!

Orthodox Answers!!!!!

How many would be interested in writing articles for it?

BObby
 

JoeS

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
Abington, PA USA
Im sorry but I ran out of fingers and toes.

JoeS ;D




Capt. Picard said:
Ok, so it's Monday morning, and you need a laugh.

Read the following and tell me how many wrong 'facts' you find.

Winner gets a prize.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp


Bobby
 

JoeS

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
Abington, PA USA
Does anyone reaaaaaaaaly think that any rebuttal would be welcomed or even allowed on a Catholic forum????????????

Hmmmmmm, didnt think so.

JoeS ::)



Capt. Picard said:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

surferuke!!!!

INcredible IDEA!!!

Orthodox Answers!!!!!

How many would be interested in writing articles for it?

BObby
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
450
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.geocities.com
I only have a comment on the issue of "caesaro-papism."

Much is made by Rome's apologists of so called "caesaro-papism" in the Orthodox Church. To an extent, these criticisms are justified, as there have certainly been meddling heretics in the Emperor's throne before (though it's also worth saying that there have also been true theologians in the Emperor's throne as well.)

However, besides the good points raised by another board member regarding the influence of the "Byzantine Emperors" over not only the east but also the west, there is the matter of the west's situation after it's estrangement from the Christian east. In particular, the years leading up to and beyond Charlemagne, the Frankish "Holy Roman Emperor". Anyone remotely familiar with this period, and the centuries which followed, will realize that the claim that the west did not suffer at the hands of secular meddling is ridiculous. Indeed, it has been opinined (such as by the late Fr.John Romanides, who wrote quite a bit on the subject; look up some of his and similar articles on the www.romanity.org website) that the Papacy as we now know it, is the creation of this Frankish secular power, the triumph of an uncomprehending mindset over the See of Rome (the Popes eventually themselves no longer being Romans, but rather barbarian nobles.)

Indeed, it would appear that a systematic destruction of the old "western Orthodox" heirarchy occured after the advent of Frankish supremecy, and similar barbarian ascents to power (like the Norman Conquest, which marks a very distinct religious change for England in the 11th century).

Seraphim
 

prodromos

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
57
Location
Back in OZ
You all missed the clanger in the article's introduction
One of the most tragic divisions within Christianity is the one between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches
Right from the outset he is stating that the Catholic church is "one" as per the prayer of our Lord Jesus, while the Orthodox church is fractured into many parts.

Wish I could claim credit for this but it was my lovely wife who picked up on it ;D

When the Catholic Normans took over the Byzantine-Rite Greek colonies in southern Italy, they compelled the Greek communities there to adopt the Latin-Rite custom of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. This caused great aggravation among the Greek Catholics because it went against their ancient custom of using leavened bread.

In response, Patriarch Cerularius ordered all of the Latin-Rite communities in Constantinople to conform to the Eastern practice of using leavened bread. You can imagine the uproar that ensued. The Latins refused, so the patriarch closed their churches and sent a hostile letter to Pope Leo IX.
Just a comment. Forcing the Greeks to use unleavened bread caused them "great aggravation", but when the shoe is on the other foot, "You can imagine the uproar that ensued". Does anybody else note a hint of hypocracy in this statement?

Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued... This changed when the Byzantine Empire collapsed suddenly in 1453.
Of course there is no mention of the crusades and the sack of Constantinople by Rome's mercenaries is there. You don't think that might have affected relations a bit do you?

From 1453 to 1923, the Turkish sultans deposed 105 out of the 159 patriarchs. Six were murdered, and only 21 died of natural causes while in office.
It might be interesting to note that the average life expectancy of a Pope once he takes office, is less than seven and a half years. Eighty two of the Popes lasted no more than two years once they took up their position, and of them, twenty eight didn't last a year. If it wasn't for a few long lived Popes, the life expectancy would be quite a bit less.

In John 21:15-17, with only the other disciples present, Jesus asks Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"...
etc.
I'll let a former Catholic priest respond to this...
The Fathers of the Church and the most learned commentators have only seen the expiation of his threefold denial in this threefold attestation of love that Christ drew from Peter. Nor did Peter see any thing else, since he "was grieved." Had he conceived that Christ therein conceded to him any superior powers, he would rather have rejoiced than have been saddened by the words that were addressed to him; but he was convinced that the Saviour demanded a triple public declaration of his fidelity, before re+»nstalling him among the shepherds of his flock, because he had given reason for legitimate suspicions by denying his Master again and again. Christ could only address himself to Peter, because he alone had been guilty of this crime.
Mgr. R+¬n+¬-Fran+ºois Guett+¬e, History of the Church of France
John
 

JoeS

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
Abington, PA USA
I think we are "preaching to the choir" here. Has anyone attempted to answer these statements on this Catholic website?

JoeS 8)


Robert said:
Ok, so it's Monday morning, and you need a laugh.

Read the following and tell me how many wrong 'facts' you find.

Winner gets a prize.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp


Bobby
 

JoeS

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
Abington, PA USA
What really annoys me is that this website has us located in the "Non-Catholic Groups" category, but I guess that's my hangup. ???

JoeS


Robert said:
Ok, so it's Monday morning, and you need a laugh.

Read the following and tell me how many wrong 'facts' you find.

Winner gets a prize.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp


Bobby
 

Bobby

Archon
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
2,442
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Raleigh, NC
JoeS,

Does it really list Orthodoxy under non-catholic groups??

I'm going to collect all the reponces, paraphrase them, and send them to Catholic Answers and await their reply.

They probably won't do jack, but it can't hurt in trying.

Bobby
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,346
Reaction score
77
Points
48
Age
56
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Faith
Catholic
Jurisdiction
Ukrainian Archdiocese of Philadelphia
this website has us located in the "Non-Catholic Groups" category
Oh, please, not that again.

Both sides use the c and o words but common English usage assigns big-C Catholic to the Pope’s church.

Why would that upset somebody who is Orthodox?

As long as they don’t call Orthodox Protestant I’m fine with it.

And after all, aren’t there people here who understandably get upset when some Catholics use big-O Orthodox for themselves, as in ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’?
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,588
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Old Calendarist
I have long toyed with just taking all the quotes from "the Soul after Death" and putting them into a format identical to a Catholic Answers online tract and call it "Toll Houses" and write something to the effect of, "The Ancient Church, undivided, believed in the toll houses. Roman Catholics veered away from that truth as is evidenced from these quotes." And put it online as a joke response to their "Purgatory" tract! haha

In Christ,

anastasios
 

Amadeus

Elder
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Chicago
Dear Friends:


I think responding, point by point, to Catholic Answers' take on Eastern Orthodoxy is a good idea. It is overdue, in fact.

Just some caveats.

Messrs. Karl Keating and James Akin have been doing apolegetics work for the Catholic Church for some considerable time now. Both man the "Apolegetics: Defending the Faith" section of EWTN Q & A.

Keating (or Catholic Answers) also publishes "THIS ROCK" magazine, while Akin can be heard regularly on the Catholic Answers Live radio program.

I have heard that Mr. Keating has been in LIVE debates versus chosen representatives of various religious groups "touched" by his Cathoic Answers tracts.

He accepts such invitations to debate anywhere. (BTW, Mr. Keating is/was a practicing lawyer in California.)

People I know say that both men are "professional" in their defense of the Catholic faith. That is, they engage in apolegetics the charitable way, without condescension.

Hope this helps.


AmdG
 

gbmtmas

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Amadeus wrote:

People I know say that both men are "professional" in their defense of the Catholic faith. That is, they engage in apolegetics the charitable way, without condescension.
I cannot agree or disagree with whether these folks are charitable or not, since I have no experience with them. However, I did subscribe to "This Rock" magazine for a year, and found that misinformation was sometimes given in that magazine. My eyes just about fell out of my sockets one time when I read in that magazine that they were claiming that St. Andrei Rublyev was a Catholic saint (as in Roman Catholic) with absolutely no mention of his Orthodoxy. I thought this bit of information so strange that I showed it to my pastor--from whom it evoked an expression of "huh?".

There are lots of Roman Catholic apologetic websites (Dave Armstrong, Stephen Ray, etc), and the most difficult challenge in that type of context (in terms of "debating" or "discussing" with these folks) will be to accurately represent their belief (to maintain our credibility), and insuring that the Orthodox view also gets accurately represented (for those who would witness such a discussion).

There is a forum that is entitled "Orthodox-Apologetics", which is dedicated to pooling folks together (and their knowledge base). The long-term goal of that forum is to pool enough resources to have an Orthodox apologetic website that would eventually answer such stuff (like "Catholic Answers"), or simply present Orthodox teaching. Some folks may want to check it out.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Orthodox-Christian-Apologetics/messages

In Christ,
Stephen
 

surferuke

Jr. Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Baja California, Mexico
Website
www.uocofusa.org
Karl Keating's son went to my high school. He was a senior when I was a frosh.

Also, at my old Catholic elementary school, Julian Madrid's kid went there and a few other Catholic answer's family members. Even in sixth grade, I had discussions with them. Parts of my family are Greek-Ukrainian-Uniate-Eastern Catholic or whatever the politically correct term is, and they could not understand that they were apart of the Roman Catholic union. They thought they were apart of some heretical sect know as the Orthodox Church (thats their thoughts, not mine!) I found many of them were actually Tridentine and upset with VCII and so on. Very interesting people. But they were nice to me overall. It seems that their big thing is debating Mormons and JW's.

 

Orthodoc

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
USA
[I read in that magazine that they were claiming that St. Andrei Rublyev was a Catholic saint (as in Roman Catholic) with absolutely no mention of his Orthodoxy. I thought this bit of information so strange that I showed it to my pastor--from whom it evoked an expression of "huh?".]

Thats nothing. St Job of Pochaev, was one of the fierce defenders of Orthodoxy against the Unia. He even organized the Orthodox brotherhoods to fight it. Yet he is venerated in both the Eastern and western rites of the Papal Catholic Church. There are even Icons of him in western vestments!

Another devoutly Orthodox saint - St Seraphim of Sarov is venerated by Eastern Rite Papal Catholics.

Orthodoc
 

gbmtmas

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Orthodoc wrote:

Thats nothing. St Job of Pochaev, was one of the fierce defenders of Orthodoxy against the Unia. he even organized the Orthodox brotherhoods to fight it, is venerated in both the Eastern and western rites of the Papal Catholic Church. There are even Icons of him in western vestments!
LOL! Well...yes, that's about as strange as the idea that St. Andrei Rublyev was a Roman Catholic saint. I guess whatever butters one's toast ::)

Stephen
 

Neo Tobiah

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm going to attempt to write a formal apologetic and send it to Catholic Answers. Before I start though I'd like to go get some Catholic books at the library tomorrow. Anything I quote (or reference as a source) from an Orthodox book will probably be viewed with skepticism, so I'll quote their own writers and historians. :)
 
H

Hypo-Ortho

Guest
Western vestments...

So what else is new? Enter a RC church named for St. Nicholas and you'll more than likely find a statue of this beloved Eastern saint from Asia Minor in Western Mass vestments, including Latin mitre and crozier.

In a Polish RC church, Mater Dolorosa Church in Holyoke, MA, I viewed a large fresco of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Teachers of the Slavs, in which these Equal-to-the-Apostles are vested in garb appropriate to the Latin Church.

Hypo-Ortho
 

varangia

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Orthodoc said:
[Thats nothing. St Job of Pochaev, was one of the fierce defenders of Orthodoxy against the Unia. He even organized the Orthodox brotherhoods to fight it. Yet he is venerated in both the Eastern and western rites of the Papal Catholic Church. There are even Icons of him in western vestments!

Orthodoc
After the Unia took over Pochaev, the Basilians tried to get the pope to canonize St. Job! "A pious benefactor from Kanev donated that sum designated by Rome for such cases" ;) This was referred to curia in 1767. In the meantime the basilians composed hymns to St. Job. By bull in 1773 Pope Clement XIV permitted the coronation of the miraculous Pochaev Icon of the Theotokos [which toured the country last year]; but presumably tabled St. Job's canonization upon hearing about his anti-unia activities.
 

Orthodoc

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
USA
[but presumably tabled St. Job's canonization upon hearing about his anti-unia activities. ]

But didn't the Vatican issue a commerative medal in honor of him? I remember having this conversation on the Byzantine Forum about a year ago. It was there I was surprised to hear that Ukrainian Catholics venerate him and there are even Icons of him in Poland.

So apparently if the Vatican didn't canonize him it didn't matter. Their Ukrainian subjects venerate him anyhow. Guess he's become another Ukrainian national hero.

Orthoman
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,588
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Old Calendarist
I'd like to venture that it is not that strange to see St. Nicholas in Western vestments because an icon is a spiritual reality not a historicaly accurate reality, so an image should be inculturated--most RC's would not understand why St. Nick had on a crown.

What I mean by "not historically accurate" is best summed up with the icon of the three hierarchs: bishops only began to wear the sakkos after 1453 (before that they wore priests' vestments with omophorion over it) but in the icon of the three hierarchs, two of the saints have on a sakkos and one has a phelonion (priest's vestment) even thought they all lived around the same time!

In Christ,

anastasios
 

Orthodoc

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
USA
["Guess he's become another Ukrainian national hero."

Dang right he has ]

Too bad some Ukrainians just don't get WHY!

Orthodoc
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
66
Location
Maryland
Orthodoc said:
St Job of Pochaev,... snip
There are even Icons of him in western vestments!

Orthodoc
Then there are the icons of British and Irish and Welsh saints in Eastern vestments, which seems unlikely to me.
 
J

James the Just

Guest
I am surprized how fellow Christians throw rocks at their brethern. I don't remember this much rheotric/ridicule aimed at the Orthodox from the other forum I participate in.

Different approaches to understanding and living out one's faith in Christ can in certain situations be complementary, they don't need to be mutally exclusive. Good will is needed in order to realize how various interpretations and ways of practicing the faith can come together and complement each other.

" But the wisdom that is from above is first of all chaste, then peaceable, moderate, docile in harmony with good things, full of mercy and good fruits, without judging, without dissimulation. The fruit of justice is sown in peace by those who make peace." James 3: 17,18.

In Christ,

James

 

Neo Tobiah

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I apologize, I shouldn't have been laughing at the contents of the article. Thank you for the correction.
 
H

Hypo-Ortho

Guest
Ebor said:
Orthodoc said:
St Job of Pochaev,... snip
There are even Icons of him in western vestments!

Orthodoc
Then there are the icons of British and Irish and Welsh saints in Eastern vestments, which seems unlikely to me.
You've got a point there, Ebor. St. Martin the Merciful, Bishop of Tours, is sometimes portrayed in Western, sometimes in Eastern, episcopal vestments though. He must have been one of the precursors of the bi-ritualists! ;D

Hypo-Ortho
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
66
Location
Maryland
Very good! ;D

I've found Gregory the Great portrayed in both sorts of vestments too. Looks like a research paper should be done on Bi-ritual history.
 

Orthodoc

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
USA
[Then there are the icons of British and Irish and Welsh saints in Eastern vestments, which seems unlikely to me.]

You are missing my whole point. How many of these Welsh and Irish Saints were fighting against attempted Roman Catholic domination over their Church?

The point is that St Job spent the his entire time fighting western domination over his Orthodox Catholic Church. To portray him in the vestments of a Church that he fought against is an insult to him and the ideals he fought for.

Orthodoc
 

Orthodoc

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
USA
Quote:But the concept of a primacy of honor without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible.
Quote:At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honor among them.

Quote:In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not.

Quote:In John 21:15-17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"—in other words, is Peter more devoted to him than the other disciples?

====================

Well, lets see what the early church fathers have to say. Note that many of them are western and many of the resources quoted are from Roman Catholic sources -

Cyprian, unwilling to grant even a simple primacy to the Bishop of Rome, considers that "the whole body of bishops is addressed in Peter." St. Cyprian rightly concludes that the "Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter." (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate,
cap. 4-5)

"I believe that by the Rock you must understand the unshaken faith of the apostles." (St. Hilary, 2nd Book on the Trinity)

Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18, et. al.) NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM applies these passages to the Roman bishops as Peter's successor. How many Fathers had busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess, Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Theodoric... has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Peter is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter. Not one of them has explained the Rock or foundation on which Christ will build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but
they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ, often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with the other apostles, the twelve being together the foundation stones of the Church." (Ignaz von Dollinger, The Papacy and the Council, p. 91)

"This one (Peter) is called a rock in order that on his FAITH (Rock) he may receive the foundations of the Church." - St. Gregory Nazianzen, 26th Discourse

"The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession." - St. John Chrysostom, 53rd Homily on St. Matthew

"The Rock (petra) is the blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by the mouth of Peter. It is on this Rock of the confession of faith that the Church is built." - St. Hilary of Poitiers, 2nd book on the Trinity

Hilary wrote the first lengthy study of the doctrine of the Church in Latin. Proclaimed a "Doctor of the Church" by the Roman See in 1851, he is called the Athanasius of the
Western Church.


Cyril of Alexandria:
Upon St. John, Book JJ, Chap. XII

'"The word "Rock" has only a denominative value-it signifies nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles."

In his Letter to Nestorius, St. Cyril says:

"Peter and John were equal in dignity and honor. Christ is the foundation of all -the unshakeable Rock upon which we are all built as a spiritual edifice."

"Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rocks. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named." - St. Jerome, 6th book on Matthew

"Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but the faith of St. Peter of which it was said, 'the gates of hell shall not prevail'; certainly it is the confession of faith which has vanquished the powers of hell."

"Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name... to Peter because he borrowed from the Rock the constancy and solidity of his faith- thy Rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a Rock, thou shalt be in the Church, for the Church is built upon the Rock... (the profession of faith in Christ Jesus)." - St. Ambrose: The Incarnation

(Note: St. Ambrose often spoke disparagingly of the Bishop of Rome as usurping the legitimate rights of other bishops in the Church. Cf. On the Incarnation, On St. Luke, and
On the 69th Psalm.)

St. Augustine, one of the most renowned theologians of the Western Church, claimed by the Roman See as "Father and Doctor", says:

"In one place I said... that the Church had been built on Peter as the Rock... but in fact it was not said to Peter, "Thou art the Rock," but rather "Thou art Peter." The Rock was Jesus Christ, Peter having confessed Him as all the Church confesses Him, He was then called Peter, "the Rock"... (ed, for his faith) ...Between these two sentiments let the reader choose the most probable." (St. Augustine, Retractions - 13th Sermon; Contra Julianum 1:13)

St. Augustine also adds: "Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them "I will build upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee."
(ibid.)

To Augustine, this made Peter somewhat less than an infallible teacher, without his fellow bishops and all the faithful by his side. It is this statement by Augustine which Pope Hadrian VI (1522-25) had in mind when he declared:

"A Pope may err alone, not only in his personal, but official capacity."

In still another letter Augustine quotes Cyprian, with whom he is in full agreement:

"For neither did Peter whom the Lord chose... when Paul afterwards disputed with him... claim or assume anything and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held a primacy and should rather be obeyed by newcomers..."

Finally, Augustine concludes, near the end of his earthly life, with these words on the "Rock of the Church":

"Christ said to Peter... I will build thee upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee. Those who wished to be built among men said, 'I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of
Cephas' - however, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Jesus Christ." (Retractions, 13th Sermon)

======

Orthodoc

 
J

James the Just

Guest
Brother Orthodoc,

I have no quarrel with your last post re the primacy, in fact I agree with it. Constructive disageements is a excellent tool of communication, it is a road in the process, which must gradually overcome many things that have built up over the span of time. I cannot correct the events of the past, only work on the present and future.

In Christ,
james
 

prodromos

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
57
Location
Back in OZ
Dearest Jacomus,

perhaps "Have a laugh" was not the most appropriate heading for this topic, however when a web site which purports to present the fullness of truth posts so much misinformation and outright falsehood, they open themselves up to ridicule.

This is the mission statement of Catholic Answers:
Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith. We explain Catholic truth, equip the faithful to live fully the sacramental life, and assist them in spreading the Good News
Apparently "truth" and "Catholic truth" are two different things judging by their article on Eastern Orthodoxy.

All in all though I don't see what you are getting upset over. I read through the posts in this thread again and for the most part found the responses to be very charitable (myself and Bobby being the most notable exceptions), considering the extremely uncharitable and biased content of the article in question. I would hardly describe it as throwing stones.

John.
 
J

James the Just

Guest
Brother Prodromos,

I am just saying we should choose our words of criticism wisely when pointing out the faults and mistakes of our brethen. I like to use the saying of the Evangelical brothers, WWJD , or what and how would He address it.

Being a older RC I find that people that have been converted to RCism are the ones usually fervent in the defense of their new faith, not listening carefully before responding. Yes, there is alot of incorrect information out there regarding Roman Catholics, Catholics and the Orthodox.

Thats how I found this forum, searching and trying to find answers to my questions of faith.

I aquire more information to strengthen my faith in Christ from the various posts and forums, I must say also my weaknesses also.

Yes I do say, Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

In Christ,
james
 

KO63AP

Jr. Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Right here :)
Orthodoc said:
Eastern Rite Papal Catholics.

Orthodoc
That's a new one for my eyes. Knowing Eastern Catholics better than any other religious group I'd have to express my shock. From reading many of the posts here it seems that they are the biggest threat Orthodox Christianity! Such vitriol, such un-Christian attitudes expressed towards them.

I know Eastern Catholics are struggling to find their true identity and proper place. Yes, they call themselves by many names as this search progresses. And what is the contribution from their Orthodox brethren? Guidanc? Assistance? No - even more names heavily laden with the attitude 'We don't want you to be anything like us - become completely Roman and forget the East'. And what is the attitude towards Rome? "We are right - you are wrong. Do everything as we say then all will be well".

From my readings I thought there were problems within the Orthodox Church. I must be mistaken. Everything is happy and perfect. Nothing is wrong, no one is ever in error on the Orthodox side of the fence. You could almost say they are infallible.

Oh, to live in the paradise that is Orthodoxy today...

Climb down from your high horses, dump your paranoia, and get real!!!

Andrij
 
Top