Poll: Do you consider Eastern Orthodox Christians to be heretics (either formal or material)?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
18
0%
0 0%
16
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Eastern Orthodoxy
#21
(11-17-2010, 04:12 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 03:39 PM)Azurestone Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: Contrary to modernist heresy they do not form a Church. Christ established one Church, the Catholic Church. The Eastern "Orthodox" Church is a man-made creation of 1054 by schismatic Catholic bishops.

They say the same about Roman Catholics. "a man-made creation revolving around the attempted power grab of the Roman Patriarch, and the vote was four to one".

Not it can't. History, Patristics, Holy Scripture and the constant belief and teaching of the Church back up the Catholic claims.

The Eastern Orthodox, unfortunately, are schismatics. They followed the lead of Constantinople, not even a apostolic see but the see of the Eastern Roman Emperor, who they were already used to take orders from.

I'm not denying the schism and heterodoxy between the Catholics and Orthodox. My point here is some blanket statements are not evidence, but merely polemical.

Do you really think the Orthodox don't point to history, Patristics and Holy Scipture? Without a Pope, this is what they rely on for their faith. The issue is much deeper and much more convoluted.
Reply
#22
(10-18-2010, 07:44 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: In my opinion, pre-Vatican II popes often made errors just as serious as pre-Vatican II popes.

I disagree.  Pre-Vatican II popes did not make errors nearly as serious as the ones made by pre-Vatican II popes.
Reply
#23
(11-17-2010, 04:21 PM)Azurestone Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 04:12 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 03:39 PM)Azurestone Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: Contrary to modernist heresy they do not form a Church. Christ established one Church, the Catholic Church. The Eastern "Orthodox" Church is a man-made creation of 1054 by schismatic Catholic bishops.

They say the same about Roman Catholics. "a man-made creation revolving around the attempted power grab of the Roman Patriarch, and the vote was four to one".

Not it can't. History, Patristics, Holy Scripture and the constant belief and teaching of the Church back up the Catholic claims.

The Eastern Orthodox, unfortunately, are schismatics. They followed the lead of Constantinople, not even a apostolic see but the see of the Eastern Roman Emperor, who they were already used to take orders from.

I'm not denying the schism and heterodoxy between the Catholics and Orthodox. My point here is some blanket statements are not evidence, but merely polemical.

Do you really think the Orthodox don't point to history, Patristics and Holy Scipture? Without a Pope, this is what they rely on for their faith.

So do some (educated) Protestants, especially the High-Church Anglicans.

Nevertheless, their interpretations all fall short of the evidence.

Quote:The issue is much deeper and much more convoluted.

Once the Orthodox recognize the Pope for who he really is, i.e. the Vicar of Christ, all the other issues will disappear.
Reply
#24
(11-17-2010, 07:50 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 04:21 PM)Azurestone Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 04:12 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 03:39 PM)Azurestone Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: Contrary to modernist heresy they do not form a Church. Christ established one Church, the Catholic Church. The Eastern "Orthodox" Church is a man-made creation of 1054 by schismatic Catholic bishops.

They say the same about Roman Catholics. "a man-made creation revolving around the attempted power grab of the Roman Patriarch, and the vote was four to one".

Not it can't. History, Patristics, Holy Scripture and the constant belief and teaching of the Church back up the Catholic claims.

The Eastern Orthodox, unfortunately, are schismatics. They followed the lead of Constantinople, not even a apostolic see but the see of the Eastern Roman Emperor, who they were already used to take orders from.

I'm not denying the schism and heterodoxy between the Catholics and Orthodox. My point here is some blanket statements are not evidence, but merely polemical.

Do you really think the Orthodox don't point to history, Patristics and Holy Scipture? Without a Pope, this is what they rely on for their faith.

So do some (educated) Protestants, especially the High-Church Anglicans.

Nevertheless, their interpretations all fall short of the evidence.

Quote:The issue is much deeper and much more convoluted.

Once the Orthodox recognize the Pope for who he really is, i.e. the Vicar of Christ, all the other issues will disappear.

Spin.

We're not talking about Protestants, we're talking about schismatics who were with the undivided church whose has jurisdictions as old as Rome's. They aren't misinterpreting the Bible. There are Early Church Fathers who support a limited role Papacy, if at all. In fact, the ones who don't support a Papal Supremist role outnumber those that do (all eastern saints, admittedly).

So it's not as easy as just "accepting it". Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation 1000 years later. It is precisely that history that makes it all the harder. For there was active efforts at unity until the late 15th century until the Muslims heavily invaded Orthodox lands. Since then many changes have occurred with new Catholic definitions and widening opinions on both sides.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)