Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #886  
Old Feb 14, '09, 7:18 pm
natsclem natsclem is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2008
Posts: 175
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John214 View Post

Regarding Dissimulate,

In either case, it seems Peter had "led others astray" by what he was telling them to do, whether or not it is based upon his disguising himself or not. Jerome did not seem to disagree with this, he simply said Paul was too harsh in that Paul was also guilty of the same. It seems we haven't cleared up this issue yet.

John
Peter's shortcoming is in failing to reinforce by action what he stood up for in the Council of Jerusalem because of fear of men--making him hypocrite, meaning that what he did (behavior) was not according to what he believed and declared. Peter did not tell them anything to led them astray. He simply lacked the nerve to back up by his behavior what he declared in the Council.

In Galatians 2:11-13

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

This has nothing to do with the dogma of infallibility. Peter and his successors despite Christ's gift of infallibility are not immune from committing error in their personal and private capacity. They can also commit sin. Also, Peter and his successors' weaknesses do not negate their being the Vicar of Christ, endowed with supreme authority and universal jurisdiction in the Church. Who are we to question the divine will of Christ to appoint Peter (and consequently his successors until the end of time) whom we know that Christ knew of his weaknesses, especially his three-time denial? And yet, Peter was appointed to be the rock upon which He would build His Church. God's ways are not our ways.

If you are interested on the Church' teaching on infallibility:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IV
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old Feb 14, '09, 7:42 pm
natsclem natsclem is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2008
Posts: 175
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluejesuit View Post
Maybe the other bishops were jealous of the Bishop of Rome?
Oh, how jealousy destroys what Jesus said. Thou art Peter, The keys of heaven, Bound on earth bound in heaven, lose on earth lose in heaven, etc.
Reading the history of schisms, the only culprit of divisions in the church is disobedience born of the marriage of jealousy and pride. Doctrinal questions serve only to justify divisions and schisms...
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old Feb 18, '09, 9:28 am
bluejesuit bluejesuit is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2009
Posts: 13
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by natsclem View Post
Reading the history of schisms, the only culprit of divisions in the church is disobedience born of the marriage of jealousy and pride. Doctrinal questions serve only to justify divisions and schisms...
Agreed. Well, if Jesus wanted to build His Church around Peter, then no one could object. If you want the building to be yours, then better be the architect of your own structure. That's what Orthodoxy is doing isn't it?

Instead of letting that thought creep in, better build the body of Christ as a united Catholic Church. The protestants are growing, we can't just sit here and let the Church of Christ be a witness to a mass "going astray" of our brothers and sisters.
Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old Feb 19, '09, 6:31 am
natsclem natsclem is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2008
Posts: 175
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluejesuit View Post
Instead of letting that thought creep in, better build the body of Christ as a united Catholic Church. The protestants are growing, we can't just sit here and let the Church of Christ be a witness to a mass "going astray" of our brothers and sisters.
The mass exodus of many of our brethren is upon the shoulder of the shepherds just as the mass return is also upon them. Like Mar Bawai; he brought with him many of his sheep back to the fold. What can we do other than to be good witnesses of the Faith? Personally, I'm in predicament as my own brother was led astray by a local religious group whose belief is Arian. He doesn't think he is led astray. Similarly, an Orthodox who persists in his being an Orthodox doest not believe of being led astray. I think what we can do is bring them up to the Lord's generous mercy--better than confronting them.
Reply With Quote
  #890  
Old Feb 19, '09, 7:32 am
Peter J's Avatar
Peter J Peter J is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2008
Posts: 9,967
Religion: Non- Non-Catholic
Post Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_McAvoy View Post
I do not think it was a good idea to start this thread. There is an arrogant mentality involved in it which severely lacks humility.
I just now re-read the opening post of this thread, and I don't see there an attempt to take cheap shots at the Orthodox, but just an effort to understand. Plus let's not forget that the opening poster is not Catholic but Protestant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_McAvoy View Post
If one is to be honest the Latin Communion has it's own shortcomings which would hardly be acceptable to a Latin Catholic from a thousand years ago. There are too many unqualified people who are attempting to explain matters they do not understand.

I will leave you to ponder this page from the biography of Archbishop John Ireland:

Quote:
Ireland's treatment of another minority group, however, led directly to disastrous consequences for the Catholic church in the United States. Two weeks after writing the long report to Cardinal Gibbons about the Scandinavians, on December 19,1889, the archbishop of St. Paul gave an interview in his office to Father Alexis Georgievich Toth, recently arrived in the United States from his birthplace and the scene of his early priestly ministry in the Austro- Hungarian Empire. Toth, a learned man of thirty-six, was a Uniate- that is, he belonged to one of the non-Latin rites in union with the Roman See but distinctive in their liturgical languages and ecclesiastical custom. A group of Ruthenian Uniates had established their own parish earlier in the year in Northeast Minneapolis - where a good many eastern European immigrants had settled - and had called Father Toth to be their pastor.

The priest presented the archbishop his credentials. Ireland's hands trembled as he read them. Then he looked up, and said abruptly in Latin: "Have you a wife?"
"No," Toth answered in the same language.
"But you had one?"
"Yes, I am a widower."
Ireland tossed the documents on the desk in front of him. "I have already written to Rome protesting against this kind of priest being sent to me!"
"What kind of priest do you mean?'
"Your kind."
"I am a Catholic priest of the Greek rite," Toth protested. "I am a Uniate and was ordained by a regular Catholic bishop."
"I do not consider that either you or this bishop of yours are Catholic; besides I do not need any Greek Catholic priests here; a Polish priest in Minneapolis is quite sufficient; the Greeks can also have him for their priest."

This rude and testy reaction on Ireland's part was only the beginning of his vendetta against the Uniates. He immediately instructed the clergy in Northeast Minneapolis to have no association with Toth and, furthermore, to state publicly from their pulpits that not even the Ruthenian Catholics were permitted to approach the Uniate priest for the sacraments. Nor was the archbishop content to manifest his dislike within the limits of his own jurisdiction. In every national forum during succeeding years he pressed for a general prohibition of Uniate activity, and he carried his case directly to Propaganda. Father Toth, meantime, was not one to be intimidated; he carried on his ministry in the face of Ireland's hostility until 1891, when he and 365 of his parishioners, refusing in effect to be either Americanized or Latinized, were formally received into the Russian Orthodox church. What started as a trickle in Minnesota soon swelled into a vast wave of schism all around the country, costing the Roman church, by conservative estimates, a quarter of a mllion communicants.

Ireland's bias against the Uniates was by no means unique; his episcopal colleagues, Americanist and anti-Americanist alike, shared it, or at least condoned it and thereby participated in causing the massive exodus to the Orthodox Church.
Page 269, John Ireland and the American Catholic Church by Marvin O'Connell
Good point. See also http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmes...Pgnu=1&recnu=9

Concerning the last statement ("Ireland's bias against the Uniates was by no means unique; his episcopal colleagues, Americanist and anti-Americanist alike, shared it, or at least condoned it and thereby participated in causing the massive exodus to the Orthodox Church.") I would just add that the American archbishops (not Archbishop Ireland alone) resolved, in 1893,

Quote:
"... that the presence of married priests of the Greek Rite in our midst is a constant menace to the chastity of our unmarried clergy, a source of scandal to the laity and therefore the sooner this point of discipline is abolished before these evils obtain large proportions, the better for religion, because the possible loss of a few souls of the Greek Rite bears no proportion to the blessings resulting from uniformity of discipline."
(See http://www.cin.org/clash7.html )

P.S. Incidentally (and not meaning to get off-topic here) if I get a chance someday I'd like to ask people in the SSPX, SSPV, etc., whether they want us to return to Archbishop Ireland's mode of operation.
__________________
- Peter Jericho

"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other"
- the Balamand Statement

Inklings group
Reply With Quote
  #891  
Old Apr 17, '10, 8:14 am
Brandon1985 Brandon1985 is offline
Trial Membership
 
Join Date: April 17, 2010
Posts: 2
Religion: Anglo-Catholic
Unhappy Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Ok, I am an Anglo-Catholic, in America that is the Episcopal church (though I have separated my self from that church due to ordination of women and homosexuals). First all, our apostolic succession is just as valid as Rome’s because it came from Rome. Now on to the topic at hand, my roommate is a Russian Orthodox Christian and I know that one fault that they have is they are pompous jerks. They feel that they are the only valid Christians, then turn around after scoffing all other priest hoods say “we only know where the church is (them) not where it isn’t (everyone else)” The problem with that is that we Catholics (Anglican and Roman) know we are the true church. There problem is that they are so thick headed they even wrote history differently than we do, they say that the Roman Empire is the same as the Byzantine Empire, and the Russians even go so far as to say that the Russian Empire is the same as the Byzantine Empire. They also say that when the Emperor “moved” to Constantinople that he took the Bishop of Rome with him. Ok, obviously the seat of Peter can move because it has before but why would the Emperor move a bishop to Constantinople if there is already a bishop there? So that’s how they make the claim that the Pope isn’t the first among equals. Now papal infallibility is something we (Anglicans) agree with them about, its obvious that Christ made Peter the foundation of the church but as some one has already pointed out he was rebuked by many including James, and by Paul. So in other words the Pope’s word should carry more weight than any other but its not infallible. So, I believe that the major problem here is the great schism, where Orthodoxy left Rome for what ever reason (I assume from pressure by the Byzantine empire) so no longer had the whole church and started to hate her sister and then once Rome was all alone she no longer had the guidance of all the patriarchs of the church lost her way. The real shame in all of it is that both churches are valid and should reunite but are to hard headed to do so. We Anglicans wish that would happen because we have lost our way after leaving Rome but can’t rejoin because of issues where we can see Rome has strayed such as Papal infallibility (also our priesthood really like there wives). So it is our daily prayer in Anglicanism that both churches reunite and become what the lord wanted again so we can come home, Rome is our Beacon but the candle is blown out through separation of the church.
Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old Apr 18, '10, 2:26 am
Hesychios Hesychios is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 11,826
Religion: Olde fashioned Christian
Smile Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by natsclem View Post
The mass exodus of many of our brethren is upon the shoulder of the shepherds just as the mass return is also upon them. Like Mar Bawai; he brought with him many ...
Mar Bawai led about 4,000 or 5,000 individuals into obedience to the Pope, information is a bit sketchy as to numbers. That might represent half a modern RC parish in size.

He was under discipline in his own church and his faculties as a bishop were suspended, after refusing an assignment to Iran. (Of course, the assignment was a punishment for his complaining about a church scandal, probably to shut him up.) It appears that they tried to take the property with them (based in the western USA), but they lost their temples/church buildings in court to the Church of the East diocese and it's new bishop.

His action of jumping to Rome (possibly prematurely, inspired by his personal situation) seriously damaged relations and dialog between Rome and the Church of the East with it's patriarch and synod of bishops, so there will not likely be many more Assyrian Christians moving from that direction in our lifetimes.
Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old Apr 18, '10, 7:23 am
Voco proTatiano Voco proTatiano is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 7, 2006
Posts: 1,306
Religion: Heretic, nominally Anglican.
Send a message via Skype™ to Voco proTatiano
Default Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

I do not like the accusations made by one branch of the vine against another.
Our Lord plainly said that whosoever shall speak falsehoods against the Son of Man shall be forgiven, provided that he does not speak falsehoods against the Holy Spirit, in which case, he will not.
According to that judgement, even the Muslims would be classed as being of Our Lord, for they accept him as Messiah, and above the angels. That places them far closer to the vine, if not part of he vine, which the Jews reject.
As for the petty quarrels between the branches of what is clearly a single vine, and the attempt by some to rend it asunder, this is what needs to be condemned.
We need to build bridges to join us, but the bridges need to be sufficiently flexible to allow a little movement without rending the structure.
Certain people fasten far too much importance to details based on 'tradition', and to little to charity.
It was once said, I hope in jest, that of the people of Northern Ireland, there were 33% Catholic, 66% Protestant, and 1% Christian.
Let those who stand in judgement remember what Our Lord said of them:
By what measure you judge, you will be judged.
My sins are many!
I cannot afford to be judged.
Can you judges afford the judgement you cry out for?
Pax vobiscum!
Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old Apr 18, '10, 10:35 am
Formosus Formosus is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 1,383
Religion: Greek-Catholic (UGCC)
Default Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon1985 View Post
Ok, I am an Anglo-Catholic, in America that is the Episcopal church (though I have separated my self from that church due to ordination of women and homosexuals). First all, our apostolic succession is just as valid as Rome’s because it came from Rome. Now on to the topic at hand, my roommate is a Russian Orthodox Christian and I know that one fault that they have is they are pompous jerks. They feel that they are the only valid Christians, then turn around after scoffing all other priest hoods say “we only know where the church is (them) not where it isn’t (everyone else)” The problem with that is that we Catholics (Anglican and Roman) know we are the true church.
So you are claiming the Russian Orthodox are "pompous jerks" when you are making the exact same claim as they are making?

Quote:
There problem is that they are so thick headed they even wrote history differently than we do, they say that the Roman Empire is the same as the Byzantine Empire,
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.
Quote:
and the Russians even go so far as to say that the Russian Empire is the same as the Byzantine Empire.
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.
Quote:
They also say that when the Emperor “moved” to Constantinople that he took the Bishop of Rome with him. Ok, obviously the seat of Peter can move because it has before but why would the Emperor move a bishop to Constantinople if there is already a bishop there? So that’s how they make the claim that the Pope isn’t the first among equals.
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.
Quote:
Now papal infallibility is something we (Anglicans) agree with them about, its obvious that Christ made Peter the foundation of the church but as some one has already pointed out he was rebuked by many including James, and by Paul. So in other words the Pope’s word should carry more weight than any other but its not infallible. So, I believe that the major problem here is the great schism, where Orthodoxy left Rome for what ever reason (I assume from pressure by the Byzantine empire)
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.

Quote:
so no longer had the whole church and started to hate her sister and then once Rome was all alone she no longer had the guidance of all the patriarchs of the church lost her way. The real shame in all of it is that both churches are valid and should reunite but are to hard headed to do so. We Anglicans wish that would happen because we have lost our way after leaving Rome but can’t rejoin because of issues where we can see Rome has strayed such as Papal infallibility (also our priesthood really like there wives). So it is our daily prayer in Anglicanism that both churches reunite and become what the lord wanted again so we can come home, Rome is our Beacon but the candle is blown out through separation of the church.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old Apr 18, '10, 12:14 pm
Ignatius Ignatius is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Posts: 4,856
Religion: Catholic
Send a message via ICQ to Ignatius
Default Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John214 View Post
So the question is, "Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church False"? This is what the RCC states
You are wrong on both counts. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not false and The Catholic Church does not say they are.
__________________
-
Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
Dirige Domine Deus meus, viam meam in conspectu tuo.
http://catholictruth.webs.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-jBa...layer_embedded
Reply With Quote
  #896  
Old Apr 19, '10, 6:41 pm
prodromos prodromos is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2004
Posts: 2,203
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Formosus View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #897  
Old Apr 20, '10, 5:17 am
Hesychios Hesychios is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 11,826
Religion: Olde fashioned Christian
Smile Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Formosus View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old Apr 20, '10, 7:53 am
stephraim stephraim is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Posts: 625
Religion: Catholic - Roman Rite
Default Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Formosus View Post
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.

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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.
__________________
Domine Iesu Christe, Fili Dei, miserere mei, peccatoris.

Reply With Quote
  #899  
Old Apr 20, '10, 1:07 pm
MarkInOregon MarkInOregon is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 1,035
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VociMike View Post
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

Last edited by MarkInOregon; Apr 20, '10 at 1:08 pm. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #900  
Old Apr 20, '10, 3:44 pm
prodromos prodromos is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2004
Posts: 2,203
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephraim View Post
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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ecumenical dialogue from an Eastern Orthodox point of view Ahlman Non-Catholic Religions 11 Feb 18, '09 10:53 am
Was the Bible forbidden in the Middle Ages, as some have claimed? Tantum ergo Non-Catholic Religions 500 May 26, '08 7:47 pm
Eastern Orthodox Claims DylanO Apologetics 7 Mar 6, '08 9:56 am


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8304Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5071CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: mountee
4358Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: lsbar
4035OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: 3DOCTORS
3853SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3617Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3264Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3212Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3203Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3070For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: B C Gill



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:28 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.