Please direct me to some readings refuting the Eastern Orthodox
#1
Hello everyone,

I don’t know where to start! I used to post here a few years ago as a Catholic (my forum name was damooster...can’t remember my login information though). Three years ago, I converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Lately, I have been having some doubts about my conversion. I have also witnessed some amazing things with my five year old autistic daughter (to summarize, we are spending some time in the Philippines so she can try a special needs school because they do not have any in Vietnam, where I work. We are stying next to a Catholic Church and my little girl likes to go into the adoration chapel, kneel, and repeat the Lord’s Prayer. If you know autism, you know this is a miracle).

I am struggling though because I have been following some of the things Pope Francis has said and done (to have people send him a letter accusing him of being a heretic did not look good). However, I cannot shake some of my doubts about the EO argument that we are the right church (particularly the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and all the in-fighting with what happened to the Ukraine).

So, I was hoping you could help me by providing some reading materials that prove the RC Church is right and the EO church is not. Any help you can provide would be most welcome and I’ll keep you posted on how I’m doing. I have been reading the seven ecumenical councils, so I was hoping to read from any other trustworthy sources.

Thank you.

P.S. Sorry for the rushed post...my children are crawling all over me.
Reply
#2
I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I have great respect for the Orthodox as the second closest among Christians, however I don't agree with married priests/bishops and I believe in the line of succession (To Pope Benedict, verdict is still out on Francis IMO).

As for Francis, I strongly believe that election was rigged, and while ever Pope Benedict is still alive and in white the verdict is still out on Francis IMO, I remain very distrustful and I ignore much of what comes out of the Vatican these days. I believe the Church is currently undergoing her passion, after which will come her resurrection.

Hope this helps and God Bless You
Jesus to St Faustina:

"For you I descended from heaven to earth; for you I allowed myself to be nailed to the cross; for you I let my Sacred Heart be pierced with a lance, thus opening wide the source of mercy for you. Come, then, with trust to draw graces from this fountain. I never reject a contrite heart." (Diary, 1485)

"Remember My Passion, and if you do not believe My words, at least believe My wounds." (Diary, 379)

"It is in My Passion that you must seek light and strength." (Diary, 654)
Reply
#3
I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, but I don't think you're going to find what you're looking for.  People have been arguing the points of both sides of this issue for a thousand years, and no one has come to a conclusion that satisfies everyone.  To me, this suggests that there isn't any irrefutable proof that will prove one church over the other to everybody who considers the question.

I think this is one of those issues where most people keep reading, keep researching, and you follow your conscience wherever it takes you.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Melkite's post:
  • Markie Boy
Reply
#4
(07-08-2019, 10:23 AM)Melkite Wrote: I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, but I don't think you're going to find what you're looking for.  People have been arguing the points of both sides of this issue for a thousand years, and no one has come to a conclusion that satisfies everyone.  To me, this suggests that there isn't any irrefutable proof that will prove one church over the other to everybody who considers the question.

I think this is one of those issues where most people keep reading, keep researching, and you follow your conscience wherever it takes you.

Agree.  The fullness of the Church is broken.  The West needs the East and visa versa. The doctrines are complementary not contradictory. The East suffers from a lack of organization and ethnic factions. The West suffers from acceptance to too much novelty. Both are apostolic and have no right to call the other "outside" of the Church.  In prayer, let your conscience lead you.
[-] The following 3 users Like meadjodha's post:
  • antiquarian, Augustinian, Markie Boy
Reply
#5
It's a struggle to try and argue for the West when there's so much outwardly wrong with our leadership. But if there's an SSPX, FSSP, or Institute of Christ the King parish nearby, definitely attend a Mass sometime. As much as I love the East and their practices, the fullness of the Church is found in communion with Rome.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes: vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.' - Ecclesiastes 1:2

My blog: https://slavetothesacredhe.art.blog/
[-] The following 4 users Like Augustinian's post:
  • alright, Filiolus, Markie Boy, Melkite
Reply
#6
(07-08-2019, 10:50 AM)meadjodha Wrote:
(07-08-2019, 10:23 AM)Melkite Wrote: I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, but I don't think you're going to find what you're looking for.  People have been arguing the points of both sides of this issue for a thousand years, and no one has come to a conclusion that satisfies everyone.  To me, this suggests that there isn't any irrefutable proof that will prove one church over the other to everybody who considers the question.

I think this is one of those issues where most people keep reading, keep researching, and you follow your conscience wherever it takes you.

Agree.  The fullness of the Church is broken.  The West needs the East and visa versa. The doctrines are complementary not contradictory. The East suffers from a lack of organization and ethnic factions. The West suffers from acceptance to too much novelty. Both are apostolic and have no right to call the other "outside" of the Church.  In prayer, let your conscience lead you.

Agreed - this is the only honest answer.
Reply
#7
(07-08-2019, 10:50 AM)meadjodha Wrote: Agree.  The fullness of the Church is broken.  The West needs the East and visa versa. The doctrines are complementary not contradictory. The East suffers from a lack of organization and ethnic factions. The West suffers from acceptance to too much novelty. Both are apostolic and have no right to call the other "outside" of the Church.  In prayer, let your conscience lead you.

The fulness of the Church cannot be broken. The Church is one, even if large numbers of people decide to place themselves outside her. To say it doesn't matter means that the papacy is meaningless and that the authority of the Pope means nothing, which also calls into question everything done by the Church over at least the past thousand years.

If the Church is broken, then every time we recite the Creed, we lie when we say that we believe in one Church. If neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox are outside the Church, then either the Church is two, or we have no idea where the Church is. And Christ promised us a visible Church.
[-] The following 4 users Like Paul's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, Augustinian, Filiolus, Stephanus ignotum
Reply
#8
(07-08-2019, 02:46 PM)Paul Wrote: The fulness of the Church cannot be broken. The Church is one, even if large numbers of people decide to place themselves outside her. To say it doesn't matter means that the papacy is meaningless and that the authority of the Pope means nothing, which also calls into question everything done by the Church over at least the past thousand years.

If the Church is broken, then every time we recite the Creed, we lie when we say that we believe in one Church. If neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox are outside the Church, then either the Church is two, or we have no idea where the Church is. And Christ promised us a visible Church.

The Church is not two, but the oneness of the Church can't be reduced to whether one is in communion with Rome or not (although I agree that that is an important, and probably essential, part).  Major fathers of the Church, like St. John Chrysostom for one example, spent large periods of time outside of communion with Rome.  They did not see this as sufficient reason to either see the unity of the Church as substantially broken, or to see themselves as outside of its structure.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#9
As others have already said, this issue has been debated for thousands of years and it isn't so simple to find something that will clearly refute the Eastern Orthodox position. However, you may find these two links helpful:

https://erickybarra.org/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9Z-xXb...J8w/videos
Reply
#10
(07-08-2019, 04:04 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-08-2019, 02:46 PM)Paul Wrote: The fulness of the Church cannot be broken. The Church is one, even if large numbers of people decide to place themselves outside her. To say it doesn't matter means that the papacy is meaningless and that the authority of the Pope means nothing, which also calls into question everything done by the Church over at least the past thousand years.

If the Church is broken, then every time we recite the Creed, we lie when we say that we believe in one Church. If neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox are outside the Church, then either the Church is two, or we have no idea where the Church is. And Christ promised us a visible Church.

The Church is not two, but the oneness of the Church can't be reduced to whether one is in communion with Rome or not (although I agree that that is an important, and probably essential, part).  Major fathers of the Church, like St. John Chrysostom for one example, spent large periods of time outside of communion with Rome.  They did not see this as sufficient reason to either see the unity of the Church as substantially broken, or to see themselves as outside of its structure.

The bolded statements don't go together. If unity with Rome is essential to being part of the Church, by that very fact one is not part of the Church if one is not in union with Rome.

I don't think any of us would argue that individuals who are Eastern Orthodox are necessarily in a state of mortal sin; many of them are probably part of the Church, just as some Protestants are probably part of the Church (I am thinking particularly of those who have been raised with certain beliefs and have not had the opportunity to discover their error). But their being part of the Church means that those individuals have virtual unity with Rome despite the institutional division. That is, given the opportunity to discover their error they would willingly correct it. However, those who culpably preserve that rupture have no virtual unity because they willingly sever themselves from Rome; these are those people who have had the opportunity to discover their error.

If one can be part of the Church and have no union with Rome whatsoever, then what is the point of the papacy?

Moreover, there really is no argument against Paul's post above; the Church's fullness cannot be broken.
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
[-] The following 2 users Like Filiolus's post:
  • alright, Augustinian
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)