Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on April 20, 2024, 05:05:13 PM
-
I've been a (sedevacantist) traditional Catholic for nearly a decade. Having come from a past of atheism, it was rather easy to dismiss protestantism and the Novus Ordo once I did a but of research. However, I never seriously considered the claims of the Eastern Orthodox to being the true Church; claims which are not nearly so easy to dismiss. Recently, due to a persistent nagging in my mind, I have decided that I need to pursue the truth of the matter by comparing the historical claims of each church. Despite praying the act of faith many times a day, I find myself having serious doubts.
Now, I'm not so much interested in refutations of their doctrines. The reason for this is that to me it all boils down to whether or not their claim to being the Church is true or not. If they are the Church of Christ, all their doctrines must be followed. If the Catholic Church (as I've believed for years) has the true claim, then all of Her doctrines must be followed.
So I'm not looking for a defense against the errors of the Greeks per se, but a solid Catholic history dealing with the schism and the period leading up to it (perhaps also dealing with the union councils, etc.) Particularly of interest is the disputed 8th ecuмenical council and Photius. Much hinges on this disputed period.
I have spoken to my priest about this, and am earnestly trying to do God's will. I don't doubt any of the dogmas of the Church as such, and yet by doubting whether it is in fact the Church, everything has been thrown into question in my mind. Please send me any recommendations and keep me in your prayers.
I have already watched a good deal of material on this including the Dimonds' various videos as well as a several part series on "the Meaning of Catholic" dealing with the topic. At this point I need some solid books, and a good look at the sources, because frankly the history is hard to parse out.
-
My auto-correct switched "refutations" to "reputations" in the title. This post is an attempt to correct that.
-
With your current doubts you shouldn't be receiving Holy Communion as doubting the faith is heresy
-
I've been a (sedevacantist) traditional Catholic for nearly a decade. Having come from a past of atheism, it was rather easy to dismiss protestantism and the Novus Ordo once I did a but of research. However, I never seriously considered the claims of the Eastern Orthodox to being the true Church; claims which are not nearly so easy to dismiss. Recently, due to a persistent nagging in my mind, I have decided that I need to pursue the truth of the matter by comparing the historical claims of each church. Despite praying the act of faith many times a day, I find myself having serious doubts.
Now, I'm not so much interested in refutations of their doctrines. The reason for this is that to me it all boils down to whether or not their claim to being the Church is true or not. If they are the Church of Christ, all their doctrines must be followed. If the Catholic Church (as I've believed for years) has the true claim, then all of Her doctrines must be followed.
So I'm not looking for a defense against the errors of the Greeks per se, but a solid Catholic history dealing with the schism and the period leading up to it (perhaps also dealing with the union councils, etc.) Particularly of interest is the disputed 8th ecuмenical council and Photius. Much hinges on this disputed period.
I have spoken to my priest about this, and am earnestly trying to do God's will. I don't doubt any of the dogmas of the Church as such, and yet by doubting whether it is in fact the Church, everything has been thrown into question in my mind. Please send me any recommendations and keep me in your prayers.
I have already watched a good deal of material on this including the Dimonds' various videos as well as a several part series on "the Meaning of Catholic" dealing with the topic. At this point I need some solid books, and a good look at the sources, because frankly the history is hard to parse out.
Is there a female relationship in your life that would not be allowed by the Church?
-
You should read Fr Fortescue's book The Orthodox Eastern Church (https://archive.org/details/TheOrthodoxEasternChurch). It's hard to find in print, but some independent publishers will make reprints of it. I'm in the middle of reading it currently, and I've learned a lot about the history of the Eastern schismatics. Fr Fortescue masterfully points out the errors at the root of the Eastern schismatics, namely their propensity for wanting to involve the secular state in everything religious rather than the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities and their blind, irrational hatred of everything Latin/western.
I just finished reading the part about the Photian schism. I think if you read that section, you will have no doubt that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ and not the Eastern schismatics. And if you read before that the history of the see of Constantinople illicitly increasing its importance from backwater nowhere to "New Rome, second to Old Rome" (while also swallowing up the rightful places of actual apostolic sees), you can easily see that it is a sham of a church.
Furthermore, the Eastern schismatics have no objective principle for determining what councils are ecuмenical. As a whole, they have no objective way of discerning theological truth. They have no way to objectively resolve jurisdictional disputes at the highest levels, so naturally the state gets involved.
-
They allow divorce a few times too so I've heard, which is against the gospel.
-
I don't doubt any of the dogmas of the Church as such, and yet by doubting whether it is in fact the Church, everything has been thrown into question in my mind.
Tragically, if you doubt whether the Catholic Church is the True Church, you doubt ALL the dogmas of the Church.
There's no doubt but that both the Catholics and the Orthodox have a historical / Sacramental continuity and succession ultimately from the Apostles. Consequently, it all boils down to whether there's a Papal Authority or not. If there isn't, then you have an inherent tendency to schism, since the Apostolic Sees would be "equals". There would be no centralized hierarchy. It's extremely clear from Sacred Scripture that St. Peter was made chief of the apostles and that the early Fathers considered the successors of the apostles to carry on their authority.
Between Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the simple practical consideration that there's no principle of unity without a Papacy, Orthodoxy is simply unworkable. Not to mention that the "Filioque" dispute by the Orthodox was utterly absurd. In fact, the episode itself inherently exposes the unworkability of the Orthodox thinking, since there you had different Catholic authorities disagreeing on a point of doctrine and therefore splitting into schism over it. Who arbitrates and settles the dispute? With Orthodoxy, there is no final arbiter of true doctrine.
I've never given even a second thought to the claims of Orthodoxy, as I find the to be utterly absurd.
-
They allow divorce a few times too so I've heard, which is against the gospel.
They claim it's consistent with the Gospel, whereas the Catholic Church, in submission to the Successor of St. Peter, have ruled otherwise? So, who's right? Who has the authority to settle the matter? There's only one even-remotely-plausible source of central doctrinal authority, the man whom Our Lord designated to be the rock upon which the Church was founded. If not the successor of St. Peter, then who? Successor of St. Jude, successor of St. Andrew? Who else but the Successor of St. Peter? It's clear in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the early Church Fathers that St. Peter, and then his successors, were considered to have the final and ultimate say when there was a doctrinal dispute among Christians.
-
I've been a (sedevacantist) traditional Catholic for nearly a decade. Having come from a past of atheism, it was rather easy to dismiss protestantism and the Novus Ordo once I did a but of research. However, I never seriously considered the claims of the Eastern Orthodox to being the true Church; claims which are not nearly so easy to dismiss. Recently, due to a persistent nagging in my mind, I have decided that I need to pursue the truth of the matter by comparing the historical claims of each church. Despite praying the act of faith many times a day, I find myself having serious doubts.
Now, I'm not so much interested in refutations of their doctrines. The reason for this is that to me it all boils down to whether or not their claim to being the Church is true or not. If they are the Church of Christ, all their doctrines must be followed. If the Catholic Church (as I've believed for years) has the true claim, then all of Her doctrines must be followed.
So I'm not looking for a defense against the errors of the Greeks per se, but a solid Catholic history dealing with the schism and the period leading up to it (perhaps also dealing with the union councils, etc.) Particularly of interest is the disputed 8th ecuмenical council and Photius. Much hinges on this disputed period.
I have spoken to my priest about this, and am earnestly trying to do God's will. I don't doubt any of the dogmas of the Church as such, and yet by doubting whether it is in fact the Church, everything has been thrown into question in my mind. Please send me any recommendations and keep me in your prayers.
I have already watched a good deal of material on this including the Dimonds' various videos as well as a several part series on "the Meaning of Catholic" dealing with the topic. At this point I need some solid books, and a good look at the sources, because frankly the history is hard to parse out.
If the dimonds playlist didn't convince you them perhaps another youtuber.
Dimonds
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGVSKByrYzss4weDvPDa-2SANNmPrxaqD&si=ZHb9YfPehSQJ_h45
Look at this guy's videos on eastern orthodoxy
https://youtube.com/@dwong9289/videos
-
I've been a (sedevacantist) traditional Catholic for nearly a decade. Having come from a past of atheism, it was rather easy to dismiss protestantism and the Novus Ordo once I did a but of research. However, I never seriously considered the claims of the Eastern Orthodox to being the true Church; claims which are not nearly so easy to dismiss. Recently, due to a persistent nagging in my mind, I have decided that I need to pursue the truth of the matter by comparing the historical claims of each church. Despite praying the act of faith many times a day, I find myself having serious doubts.
Now, I'm not so much interested in refutations of their doctrines. The reason for this is that to me it all boils down to whether or not their claim to being the Church is true or not. If they are the Church of Christ, all their doctrines must be followed. If the Catholic Church (as I've believed for years) has the true claim, then all of Her doctrines must be followed.
So I'm not looking for a defense against the errors of the Greeks per se, but a solid Catholic history dealing with the schism and the period leading up to it (perhaps also dealing with the union councils, etc.) Particularly of interest is the disputed 8th ecuмenical council and Photius. Much hinges on this disputed period.
I have spoken to my priest about this, and am earnestly trying to do God's will. I don't doubt any of the dogmas of the Church as such, and yet by doubting whether it is in fact the Church, everything has been thrown into question in my mind. Please send me any recommendations and keep me in your prayers.
I have already watched a good deal of material on this including the Dimonds' various videos as well as a several part series on "the Meaning of Catholic" dealing with the topic. At this point I need some solid books, and a good look at the sources, because frankly the history is hard to parse out.
If the Dimonds' playlist on Eastern "Orthodoxy" didn't convince you then nothing will. You have a spiritual problem, not an intellectual one.
That Palamism is heretical nonsense is clear as day. You are not obliged to investigate any false religions, by the way.
I recommend praying the 15 decades each day and trusting in God.
I wish you well. Godspeed.
-
I've never given even a second thought to the claims of Orthodoxy, as I find the to be utterly absurd.
THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
-
You are not obliged to investigate any false religions, by the way.
This 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
-
As someone who did consider the EO prior to conversion, I don't understand your position at all. How can one separate the doctrine with the claim to be the One True Church? If they have errors, then they clearly are not the True Church. No historical research is necessary. Furthermore, where does one go to know The Truth as set forth by the EO? Which Patriarch?
-
I recommend praying the 15 decades each day and trusting in God.
THIS ^^^
-
If the Dimonds' playlist on Eastern "Orthodoxy" didn't convince you then nothing will. You have a spiritual problem, not an intellectual one.
Yes, I don't see how you could go through their videos on Orthodoxy and not coming away realizing that their claims are downright laughable.
-
They are aesthetically beautiful, yes. Many beautiful buildings, and icons and choral pieces used in worship. But aesthetics and beauty alone cannot save. Orthodoxy is a cobbled together, heretical mess.
-
Is there a female relationship in your life that would not be allowed by the Church?
No, but thank you for asking. I know that is a common reason for people leaving the Church. Also, thank you to everyone else. I picked up a copy of the Fortescue book as well as one by Erick Ybarra (a novus ordite but he is a scholar on the Greek Schism) called "The Papacy." I already pray the 15 decades but of course will continue to do so. Prayer and study.
-
No, but thank you for asking. I know that is a common reason for people leaving the Church. Also, thank you to everyone else. I picked up a copy of the Fortescue book as well as one by Erick Ybarra (a novus ordite but he is a scholar on the Greek Schism) called "The Papacy." I already pray the 15 decades but of course will continue to do so. Prayer and study.
That's great to hear. I have it on good authority that Fr. Fortescue's book is an excellent source for learning about the Eastern Schism. May it strengthen your faith.
Thank you, Sneedevacantist for recommending it!
-
No, but thank you for asking. I know that is a common reason for people leaving the Church. Also, thank you to everyone else. I picked up a copy of the Fortescue book as well as one by Erick Ybarra (a novus ordite but he is a scholar on the Greek Schism) called "The Papacy." I already pray the 15 decades but of course will continue to do so. Prayer and study.
Great! As I said, I'm positive the spiritual aspect is what counts here so I'd focus more on being in the right frame of mind, maybe read some lives of the saints as well.
:pray:
-
No, but thank you for asking. I know that is a common reason for people leaving the Church. Also, thank you to everyone else. I picked up a copy of the Fortescue book as well as one by Erick Ybarra (a novus ordite but he is a scholar on the Greek Schism) called "The Papacy." I already pray the 15 decades but of course will continue to do so. Prayer and study.
As Matthew said before, pretend the Eastern Schismatics don't exist. The ones on the internet who spread their heresy are worse than pagans for leading so many souls to profane the sacraments.
-
This topic is really very nuanced and difficult to navigate. The theology, culture, and mentalities of Byzantine Catholics -- Ruthenians especially come to mind -- is nearly identical to their schismatic Orthodox counterparts, and will sometimes identify as Orthodox in communion with the Papacy. The treaties of Brest and Uzghorod by which several Orthodox Churches entered into communion with the Papacy guaranteed their Orthodox identity, whilst the eastern Churches would acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and refrain from accusing the Latin Church of heresy for sundry reasons (filioque, use of unleavened bread, purgatory and indulgences, clean-shaven clergy, etc.). Also, whilst the Byzantine Catholics do not practice the divorce policies of the schismatics and accept (or at least tolerate) the recent Marian dogmas, Latins need to be careful in what they condemn or attack in the Orthodox because it can often be an equal attack on the Byzantine Catholics.
-
Thank you, Sneedevacantist for recommending it!
I'm glad I discovered the book. It was only in reading the footnotes of Fr Fortescue's The Greek Fathers: Their Lives and Writings (another book I highly recommend) that I saw mention of the book. What a shame that it's not in print with any of the big Catholic publishers, because I think it is an invaluable resource in today's time due to how many traditional Catholics are being seduced by the Eastern schismatics during the crisis. I've witnessed two Catholics so far that I've communed with go over to the Eastern schismatics. Online and charismatic Orthobros like Jay Dyer are preying on the chronically online confused young men of today.
-
This topic is really very nuanced and difficult to navigate. The theology, culture, and mentalities of Byzantine Catholics -- Ruthenians especially come to mind -- is nearly identical to their schismatic Orthodox counterparts, and will sometimes identify as Orthodox in communion with the Papacy. The treaties of Brest and Uzghorod by which several Orthodox Churches entered into communion with the Papacy guaranteed their Orthodox identity, whilst the eastern Churches would acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and refrain from accusing the Latin Church of heresy for sundry reasons (filioque, use of unleavened bread, purgatory and indulgences, clean-shaven clergy, etc.). Also, whilst the Byzantine Catholics do not practice the divorce policies of the schismatics and accept (or at least tolerate) the recent Marian dogmas, Latins need to be careful in what they condemn or attack in the Orthodox because it can often be an equal attack on the Byzantine Catholics.
Why would someone down vote this comment when I am simply laying out an ecclesiological fact?
Eastern Orthodoxy is a religious system shot through with inconsistencies and nationalisms. A Latin Catholic would be rash and foolish to defect to Orthodoxy because he would have to abandon his culture and he would always be suspect as a foreigner amongst the Orthodox. And, of course, Orthodoxy is cut off from the true Church. Even to go to the Western Orthodox vicariates with the Russians or Antiochians is senseless since most Orthodox hold that only the Byzantine liturgy is acceptable worship.
What I stated in my comment is simply a presentation of facts and a counsel against rash judgments since the distance between Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is much shorter than thd distance between Byzantine Catholics and Roman Catholics, yet the Byzantine Catholics are own brothers in ecclesial communion.
-
Why would someone down vote this comment when I am simply laying out an ecclesiological fact?
Eastern Orthodoxy is a religious system shot through with inconsistencies and nationalisms. A Latin Catholic would be rash and foolish to defect to Orthodoxy because he would have to abandon his culture and he would always be suspect as a foreigner amongst the Orthodox. And, of course, Orthodoxy is cut off from the true Church. Even to go to the Western Orthodox vicariates with the Russians or Antiochians is senseless since most Orthodox hold that only the Byzantine liturgy is acceptable worship.
What I stated in my comment is simply a presentation of facts and a counsel against rash judgments since the distance between Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is much shorter than thd distance between Byzantine Catholics and Roman Catholics, yet the Byzantine Catholics are own brothers in ecclesial communion.
I wasn't the one to downvote you, but it might be because if the "Byzantine Catholics'" mentality is "nearly identical" to the Orthodox in the ways you mentioned and identify as "Orthodox", then are they really Catholic?
The theology, culture, and mentalities of Byzantine Catholics -- Ruthenians especially come to mind -- is nearly identical to their schismatic Orthodox counterparts, and will sometimes identify as Orthodox in communion with the Papacy.
-
I wasn't the one to downvote you, but it might be because if the "Byzantine Catholics'" mentality is "nearly identical" to the Orthodox in the ways you mentioned and identify as "Orthodox", then are they really Catholic?
The theology, culture, and mentalities of Byzantine Catholics -- Ruthenians especially come to mind -- is nearly identical to their schismatic Orthodox counterparts, and will sometimes identify as Orthodox in communion with the Papacy.
Yes, the Byzantine Catholics are Catholic. They share the one Apostolic Faith, possess Apostolic succession (unlike the Novus Ordo where this is an open question), celebrate the seven sacraments (mysteries in their terminology), in communion with the See of Rome.
Is there anything else needed?
Do you have a different definition of Catholic, perhaps "only Roman" equals Catholic?
Have you ever met or interacted with Byzantine Catholics? I live amongst a large population of Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox -- one of the largest concentrations outside Eastern Europe and the Near East. Although as I wrote earlier, the Byzantines are closer to the Orthodox than to Latins, I also pointed out that some Byzantines call themselves "Orthodox in communion with the Papacy."
THAT makes all the difference.
Have you read the treaties of Brest or Uzghorod? Have you seen what little Rome required of the eastern Churches to enter into communion and be identified in the West as "Catholic"? Have you seen what Rome agreed to on her part?
In COMMUNION with the PAPACY!
I am reminded of a seminary professor at STAS, freshly ordained, who kept rdferring in speech and writing to the Syriac Maronite Catholic Church as the "Marianites". 🤦♂️
-
I'm glad I discovered the book. It was only in reading the footnotes of Fr Fortescue's The Greek Fathers: Their Lives and Writings (another book I highly recommend) that I saw mention of the book. What a shame that it's not in print with any of the big Catholic publishers, because I think it is an invaluable resource in today's time due to how many traditional Catholics are being seduced by the Eastern schismatics during the crisis. I've witnessed two Catholics so far that I've communed with go over to the Eastern schismatics. Online and charismatic Orthobros like Jay Dyer are preying on the chronically online confused young men of today.
Thanks man. I will get that book too. It's interesting that you said this, yesterday I was discussing with a trad friend how much of an issue Dyer is. Despite Dyers stark shifts of religious views, and being a schismatic, he knows how to argue subtle points of theology… And his material on conspiracy and occult symbolism attract many young men to his content. It's sad to say it but you are right about him. I think he is purposely deceptive, and a convincing, effective Orthobro honeypot. “Orthobro“ is funny, I'm going to start referring to them as that. Haha. It describes them well. They often try and portray this Chad persona that's nothing but a caricature of masculinity.
Lastly, I agree also that there are many out of print Catholic books that need to be Resurrected back into circulation. God willing, I will do this one day. That's a personal goal of mine. There are many hidden gems in the public domain just waiting to be made available for Catholics to read. I know most books are reprinted n’ such nowadays but I'm talking about nice copies that are fitting for these books. One of the books at the top of my list if not the first is to make a pocket size copy of Humility of Heart. Why no one else has done this before is borderline criminal. Ha.
-
Why would someone down vote this comment when I am simply laying out an ecclesiological fact?
Eastern Orthodoxy is a religious system shot through with inconsistencies and nationalisms. A Latin Catholic would be rash and foolish to defect to Orthodoxy because he would have to abandon his culture and he would always be suspect as a foreigner amongst the Orthodox. And, of course, Orthodoxy is cut off from the true Church. Even to go to the Western Orthodox vicariates with the Russians or Antiochians is senseless since most Orthodox hold that only the Byzantine liturgy is acceptable worship.
What I stated in my comment is simply a presentation of facts and a counsel against rash judgments since the distance between Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is much shorter than thd distance between Byzantine Catholics and Roman Catholics, yet the Byzantine Catholics are own brothers in ecclesial communion.
If the Byzantines are Catholic despite keeping the Orthodox label, then why the concern about rash judgments? No one has made any comment that has anything to do with them. All of the doctrinal issues were clearly about the Orthodox. I just don't see why you felt the NEED to bring them up at all.
-
Why would someone down vote this comment when I am simply laying out an ecclesiological fact?
Eastern Orthodoxy is a religious system shot through with inconsistencies and nationalisms. A Latin Catholic would be rash and foolish to defect to Orthodoxy because he would have to abandon his culture and he would always be suspect as a foreigner amongst the Orthodox. And, of course, Orthodoxy is cut off from the true Church. Even to go to the Western Orthodox vicariates with the Russians or Antiochians is senseless since most Orthodox hold that only the Byzantine liturgy is acceptable worship.
What I stated in my comment is simply a presentation of facts and a counsel against rash judgments since the distance between Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is much shorter than thd distance between Byzantine Catholics and Roman Catholics, yet the Byzantine Catholics are own brothers in ecclesial communion.
Not advocating taking up with them --- God forbid! --- but some Orthodox congregations, particularly Russian Orthodox ones, are very heavily made up of converts. Such people are typically not of nationalities one commonly associates with Orthodoxy. There is a certain deference to the culture and mentality of the "host country", whatever country that might be, but these people are not Russified (in the example I describes above) and never will be. This is in contrast to, most of all, the Greek Orthodox, whose parishes are, at the end of the day, pretty much Greek cultural and social organizations. Ditto the Antiochian Orthodox, though they are a bit (but only a bit) more able to comprehend someone being among them who is not Syrian or Lebanese.
Having married a Polish woman (albeit divorced for many years now) and having a son who is half of that blood and is a Polish citizen, I think of myself sometimes as what I call "SABA", "Slavic American By Assimilation". I could fit into a Russian or Ukrainian parish better than any other (somewhat of a familiarity with the language group, and I do like the food!), not to mention that I am sometimes taken for Slavic --- there is nothing about my appearance that suggests I'm not, whereas in a Greek or Lebanese parish, I'd stick out like a sore thumb. But I'm not about to become Orthodox, nor even Eastern Catholic for that matter. Latin Catholicism is my home and always will be.
-
I think of myself sometimes as what I call "SABA", "Slavic American By Assimilation".
Latin Catholicism is my home and always will be.
I am a quarter Slav and my physical appearance is very Slavic even if the rest of me is British-Irish and I am culturally British-Irish. My Polish-Belarussian wife looks more like a sibling to me than my wholly Irish-looking brother.
And, YES, Latin Catholicism is my home too and where I will always remain.
-
You should read Fr Fortescue's book The Orthodox Eastern Church (https://archive.org/details/TheOrthodoxEasternChurch). It's hard to find in print, but some independent publishers will make reprints of it. I'm in the middle of reading it currently, and I've learned a lot about the history of the Eastern schismatics. Fr Fortescue masterfully points out the errors at the root of the Eastern schismatics, namely their propensity for wanting to involve the secular state in everything religious rather than the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities and their blind, irrational hatred of everything Latin/western.
I just finished reading the part about the Photian schism. I think if you read that section, you will have no doubt that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ and not the Eastern schismatics. And if you read before that the history of the see of Constantinople illicitly increasing its importance from backwater nowhere to "New Rome, second to Old Rome" (while also swallowing up the rightful places of actual apostolic sees), you can easily see that it is a sham of a church.
Furthermore, the Eastern schismatics have no objective principle for determining what councils are ecuмenical. As a whole, they have no objective way of discerning theological truth. They have no way to objectively resolve jurisdictional disputes at the highest levels, so naturally the state gets involved.
I've always wondered how Constantinople could claim to be a "patriarchate" as it was not one of the original apostolic sees (the others being Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria).
I claim relative ignorance here. Can someone shed light on this?
-
I've always wondered how Constantinople could claim to be a "patriarchate" as it was not one of the original apostolic sees (the others being Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria).
I claim relative ignorance here. Can someone shed light on this?
Constantinople's claim to be a patriarchate was a journey in itself. In culminated in the passage of canon 28 at the Council of Chalcedon (which almost entirely consisted of eastern bishops), which placed Constantinople over all the other patriarchates except Rome. Canon 28 is the linchpin to their claims of being all that and a bag of chips, and came about because of the growing ambition of Constantinople. It was the center of the empire, and they figured they had a right to consolidate and appropriate power. What they will never tell you, however, is that the papal representatives at the council objected to Canon 28, it was passed in the middle of the night when the papal representatives weren't present, and Pope Leo the Great nullified that canon "by the authority of blessed Peter".
Read the acts of the council of Chalcedon itself, as well as the letters of Leo the Great to Emperor Marcian, Empress Pulcharia, Patriarch Anatolius, and John of Cos. It paints a vivid picture of what really happened.
Letter 132, which is a letter of Anatolius (Patriarch of Constantinople) to Leo, is pure gold. In it, Anatolius acknowledges Pope Leo's right to approve or disapprove any part of the council, he protests that his great desire is to "obey" Leo in all things, and he accedes to Leo's commands to correct two unjust administrative changes involving two individuals at the local level in Constantinople (the restoration of a Catholic who unjustly lost his job, and the dismissal of a heretic who had been protected by Anatolius).
The end result is that Canon 28 pretty much disappeared for the next several centuries, being resurrected by Photius and, to a greater extent, by Michael Cerularius in the 11th century. Michael was worse than Photius, in that it was his actions that were responsible for the more permanent separation of Rome and Constantinople.
It's important to note that, while Constantinople dropped Canon 28 after Leo nullified it, they continued to behave as if it was in force.
The Greeks returned to the Faith and submission to Rome twice after Cerularius. Once at the second council of Lyons (1274), and the other at the Council of Florence (1439). Florence was the biggest, and it had amazing results. The last two emperors of the Byzantine empire (John VIII Palaiologos and Constantine XI Palaiologos) died as Catholics in submission to the Pope, and the entire reason they went into schism again after the Council of Florence is because of the Turks. Mehmet the II took Constantinople on Pentecost in 1453, and installed a new patriarch (while the Catholic Patriarch was in Rome) named Gennadius Scholarius, who was the most anti-Catholic bishop he could find. Scholarius was a protege of Mark of Ephesus, who was the only bishop in the east who refused to sign the docuмents of the Council of Florence. Mark went back to Constantinople after the council and caused all sorts of trouble, stirring the people up against the reunion.
Gennadius Scholarius, on being chosen as the new Patriarch, processed through the streets of Constantinople and received the symbols of his new office directly from the hands of Mehmet II, an Ottoman Turk. This scene is immortalized in a number of Greek icons.
Why anyone would look at the claims of Orthodoxy seriously is beyond me.
-
That post was me
-
It's important to note that the original Patriarchates, specifically Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, were all Petrine sees. St. Peter founded Antioch, St. Mark (Peter's secretary) founded Alexandria, and of course, St. Peter founded and died in Rome. The others, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc., came later.
-
Again, that last post was me
-
Oh, and in that letter 132 of Anatolius to Leo, he claims he had nothing to do with passing Canon 28. He blamed that entirely on the clergy of Constantinople (of which he as the head). ::)
-
Constantinople's claim to be a patriarchate was a journey in itself. In culminated in the passage of canon 28 at the Council of Chalcedon (which almost entirely consisted of eastern bishops), which placed Constantinople over all the other patriarchates except Rome. Canon 28 is the linchpin to their claims of being all that and a bag of chips, and came about because of the growing ambition of Constantinople. It was the center of the empire, and they figured they had a right to consolidate and appropriate power. What they will never tell you, however, is that the papal representatives at the council objected to Canon 28, it was passed in the middle of the night when the papal representatives weren't present, and Pope Leo the Great nullified that canon "by the authority of blessed Peter".
Read the acts of the council of Chalcedon itself, as well as the letters of Leo the Great to Emperor Marcian, Empress Pulcharia, Patriarch Anatolius, and John of Cos. It paints a vivid picture of what really happened.
Letter 132, which is a letter of Anatolius (Patriarch of Constantinople) to Leo, is pure gold. In it, Anatolius acknowledges Pope Leo's right to approve or disapprove any part of the council, he protests that his great desire is to "obey" Leo in all things, and he accedes to Leo's commands to correct two unjust administrative changes involving two individuals at the local level in Constantinople (the restoration of a Catholic who unjustly lost his job, and the dismissal of a heretic who had been protected by Anatolius).
The end result is that Canon 28 pretty much disappeared for the next several centuries, being resurrected by Photius and, to a greater extent, by Michael Cerularius in the 11th century. Michael was worse than Photius, in that it was his actions that were responsible for the more permanent separation of Rome and Constantinople.
It's important to note that, while Constantinople dropped Canon 28 after Leo nullified it, they continued to behave as if it was in force.
The Greeks returned to the Faith and submission to Rome twice after Cerularius. Once at the second council of Lyons (1274), and the other at the Council of Florence (1439). Florence was the biggest, and it had amazing results. The last two emperors of the Byzantine empire (John VIII Palaiologos and Constantine XI Palaiologos) died as Catholics in submission to the Pope, and the entire reason they went into schism again after the Council of Florence is because of the Turks. Mehmet the II took Constantinople on Pentecost in 1453, and installed a new patriarch (while the Catholic Patriarch was in Rome) named Gennadius Scholarius, who was the most anti-Catholic bishop he could find. Scholarius was a protege of Mark of Ephesus, who was the only bishop in the east who refused to sign the docuмents of the Council of Florence. Mark went back to Constantinople after the council and caused all sorts of trouble, stirring the people up against the reunion.
Gennadius Scholarius, on being chosen as the new Patriarch, processed through the streets of Constantinople and received the symbols of his new office directly from the hands of Mehmet II, an Ottoman Turk. This scene is immortalized in a number of Greek icons.
Why anyone would look at the claims of Orthodoxy seriously is beyond me.
And there are some Orthodox who want to take it one step further, and proclaim Moscow to be the "Third Rome", in that Constantinople doesn't really exist anymore as a center of Orthodoxy (the Ottoman Turks took care of that).
Constantinople is almost what we Latins would call a "titular see".
-
After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Patriarchs of that city have lived in complete subjugation to their Turkish overlords, even to this day. The Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch shared a similar fate. Moscow was made a patriarchate by Constantinople in 1589, was suppressed under Tsar Peter the Great in 1721, being replaced by "The Holy Synod" (under complete government control), and later resurrected in 1917 in time for the communist revolution.
None of them have any missionary spirit, since under the Turks they were forbidden to evangelize. That only seems to have changed now, not because the Greeks are worthy of attention, but because of the catastrophe of the current crisis. In other words, the Novus Ordo church is so bad, it makes the Greeks look good. No one would seriously consider the Orthodox as a viable option in 1950. The main reason people are struggling with it now is because they don't believe the words of Christ: "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it."
-
Here is a list of books I have purchased and read over the last year that are related to this topic: Most of them are available on Archive.org for free.
The History of Heresies and Their Refutation Paperback - St. Alphonsus
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0976911809?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated - 1848
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1313537446?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
The Papacy and the First Councils of the Church - 1910
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1331097614?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
The Primitive Church and the See of Peter - 1894
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1530097878?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
The Pope: The Vicar of Christ, the Head of the Church - 1885
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0484049992/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
The Faith of Catholics Volume 2 - 1910
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1341179400/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
The Tradition Of The Syriac Church Of Antioch: Concerning The Primacy And The Prerogatives Of St. Peter And Of His Successors The Roman Pontiffs - 1871
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1499281382/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Vindicating the Filioque: The Church Fathers at the Council of Florence - 2023
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1645853179/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_10?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1
On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope: When Teaching the Faithful and His Relation to a General Council - 1869
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/149734994X/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_7?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1
What you will find on the Orthodox side is a complete inability to explain how for the first thousand years, they submitted to Rome, obeyed Rome, and acknowledged Rome's supremacy over the whole Christian world. This is so clearly and profoundly docuмented, it takes a truly dishonest man to deny it. But dishonesty is the essence of the Orthodox apologist.
The reason I've had to do so much reading on this is because my brother did exactly what you are considering, he abandoned the wave-tossed Barque of Peter in favor of the loose confederation of waring tribes that is Orthodoxy. He lost his faith eight or nine years ago, and hid it very well. Two years ago, he surprised all of us by becoming a catechumen at the local Antiochian Orthodox Church.
He ceased to believe the words and promises of Christ, and in the midst of the storm, he chose to jump ship rather than patiently endure the passion of the Mystical Body of Christ. The temptation to gaze upon the crucified Church, held up to the whole world as an object of ridicule, and to doubt that this truly is the Church Christ founded is a tremendous trap. My brother can't fathom how this could happen to the True Church, in the same way that so many of the apostles and Jєωs couldn't fathom how God Himself could be crucified. Is the servant above his Master? Do we deserve anything less?
His church was not founded on the Rock of Peter. His church does not have the keys. His church does not have the promise of Christ, that the gates of hell will never prevail against it.
You seek safety and security, peace and tranquility. You will not find it in Orthodoxy. Not only because it is a false religion, but because they have nothing but stagnation and disunity to offer. They are the tattered remnants of a long-dead empire, a decaying corpse that should have been buried centuries ago.
And you will have to be prepared to deny the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. You will have to reject the true nature of original sin, taking on a Pelagian view of it instead. You must be prepared to deny the distinction between mortal and venial sin, the concepts of purgatory, indulgences, and reparation. Hell to the orthodox mind is undefined. Prepare yourself to embrace Palamism, and an unending string of other errors. And because of a lack of scholasticism and truth, you must be prepared to accept "it's a mystery" as an answer to any question they don't have an answer for, which are considerable.
No, you will not find what you're looking for there.
-
Some of the links above weren't working. I'll try again. If these don't work, just search for the titles on Amazon or Archive.org
The History of Heresies and Their Refutation Paperback - St. Alphonsus
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0976911809?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated - 1848
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1313537446?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
The Papacy and the First Councils of the Church - 1910
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1331097614?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
The Primitive Church and the See of Peter - 1894
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1530097878?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
The Pope: The Vicar of Christ, the Head of the Church - 1885
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0484049992/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
The Faith of Catholics Volume 2 - 1910
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1341179400/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
The Tradition Of The Syriac Church Of Antioch: Concerning The Primacy And The Prerogatives Of St. Peter And Of His Successors The Roman Pontiffs - 1871
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1499281382/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Vindicating the Filioque: The Church Fathers at the Council of Florence - 2023
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1645853179/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_10?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1
On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope: When Teaching the Faithful and His Relation to a General Council - 1869
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/149734994X/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_7?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1
-
Some of the links above weren't working. I'll try again. If these don't work, just search for the titles on Amazon or Archive.org
The History of Heresies and Their Refutation Paperback - St. Alphonsus
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0976911809?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated - 1848
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1313537446?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
The Papacy and the First Councils of the Church - 1910
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1331097614?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
The Primitive Church and the See of Peter - 1894
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1530097878?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
The Pope: The Vicar of Christ, the Head of the Church - 1885
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0484049992/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
The Faith of Catholics Volume 2 - 1910
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1341179400/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
The Tradition Of The Syriac Church Of Antioch: Concerning The Primacy And The Prerogatives Of St. Peter And Of His Successors The Roman Pontiffs - 1871
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1499281382/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Vindicating the Filioque: The Church Fathers at the Council of Florence - 2023
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1645853179/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_10?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1
On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope: When Teaching the Faithful and His Relation to a General Council - 1869
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/149734994X/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_7?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1
OP here. Wow thank you very much for your thorough posts and recommendations! As there are quite a few books listed here, are there 2 or 3 which you found most useful or preferable to the others? I have to start somewhere after all, and would like to have the most forceful arguments and evidence presented. Thank you again. God bless you.
-
After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Patriarchs of that city have lived in complete subjugation to their Turkish overlords, even to this day. The Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch shared a similar fate. Moscow was made a patriarchate by Constantinople in 1589, was suppressed under Tsar Peter the Great in 1721, being replaced by "The Holy Synod" (under complete government control), and later resurrected in 1917 in time for the communist revolution.
None of them have any missionary spirit, since under the Turks they were forbidden to evangelize. That only seems to have changed now, not because the Greeks are worthy of attention, but because of the catastrophe of the current crisis. In other words, the Novus Ordo church is so bad, it makes the Greeks look good. No one would seriously consider the Orthodox as a viable option in 1950. The main reason people are struggling with it now is because they don't believe the words of Christ: "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it."
I have to think that the typical Catholic in the pew, in 1950, would have thought of the Orthodox as occupying quaint ethnic enclaves which, as I noted above, basically functioned as social clubs (and possibly aid societies as well) for non-mainstream nationalities. I have a vague memory of, in my boyhood (which, sadly, was not Catholic), thinking of Greeks and Lebanese as "maybe being like Jєωs or something".
-
OP here. Wow thank you very much for your thorough posts and recommendations! As there are quite a few books listed here, are there 2 or 3 which you found most useful or preferable to the others? I have to start somewhere after all, and would like to have the most forceful arguments and evidence presented. Thank you again. God bless you.
That depends on what information you're looking for. As you can tell, most of the selections above deal with the Papacy and the early Church, and not even specifically Orthodoxy. I focused on that because that was at the heart of my discussions with my brother. He made broad claims that the papacy as we know it didn't exist in the first millennium, which is a complete load of rubbish. What I discovered in my reading is that nearly all of the Orthodox arguments/apologetics in this area come from the Anglicans, particularly as a result of the Oxford movement. The Anglicans started reading the early fathers, and once they realized those fathers were thoroughly Catholic, there were two responses: 1) pour through the history books and try to come up with excuses for why they can avoid converting and continue justifying their schism, or 2) accept reality and convert to Catholicism.
The evidence for the claims of the papacy are so overwhelming in the early Church as to be a source of draw-dropping amazement that anyone can deny it. I even challenged my brother to find a SINGLE SOURCE in the early Church that argues that the pope was simply first among equals, or that argues the pope is not the visible head of the Church, or that he is not infallible, or that he does not have universal jurisdiction, etc. He couldn't find one father, or one historical source that agrees with his assessment of the papacy. Not even the heretics and schismatics at the time argued such things.
But the claims of the papacy, including infallibility, universal jurisdiction, being visible head of the Church, and wielding the power of the keys is present in undeniable fashion from the writings of the fathers, the popes, in the acts of the councils, the private letters and public statements of patriarchs, emperors, bishops, popes and kings. It was accepted as a matter of course. It was never challenged; it was ignored at times, but was never challenged.
Nearly every objection to the Papacy is dealt with in extraordinary depth and completeness by St. Robert Bellarmine in his work "On the Roman Pontiff (https://mediatrixpress.com/product/on-the-roman-pontiff-by-st-robert-bellarmine/)" (available from Mediatrix Press).
My brother has no good will. I have shown him docuмent after docuмent, from popes, councils and patriarchs, that express in the clearest terms the claims of the papacy, and he is blind and deaf to it. I showed him Pope Leo the Great's letter 10 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604010.htm), as one of many examples, and read it to him. It had about as much effect as rain on a duck's back.
But if he will not believe the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18, then why would he accept the words of men? He has made up his mind, and has hardened his heart.
The bottom line is this: I don't quite know what information you're looking for.
-
I suppose one of the first ones I would recommend would be The Primitive Church and the See of Peter (https://a.co/d/jhHvBef), since it deals with many of the Anglican arguments against the papacy.
St. Robert Bellarmine's "On the Roman Pontiff" mentioned above is excellent, but lengthy.
Fr. Adrian Fortescue's work on the Orthodox Church (https://a.co/d/9p8ykxs) (mentioned by another poster) is an excellent overview of the historical situation. And he is refreshingly fair in his treatment of the Greeks.
-
That depends on what information you're looking for. As you can tell, most of the selections above deal with the Papacy and the early Church, and not even specifically Orthodoxy. I focused on that because that was at the heart of my discussions with my brother. He made broad claims that the papacy as we know it didn't exist in the first millennium, which is a complete load of rubbish. What I discovered in my reading is that nearly all of the Orthodox arguments/apologetics in this area come from the Anglicans, particularly as a result of the Oxford movement. The Anglicans started reading the early fathers, and once they realized those fathers were thoroughly Catholic, there were two responses: 1) pour through the history books and try to come up with excuses for why they can avoid converting and continue justifying their schism, or 2) accept reality and convert to Catholicism.
The evidence for the claims of the papacy are so overwhelming in the early Church as to be a source of draw-dropping amazement that anyone can deny it. I even challenged my brother to find a SINGLE SOURCE in the early Church that argues that the pope was simply first among equals, or that argues the pope is not the visible head of the Church, or that he is not infallible, or that he does not have universal jurisdiction, etc. He couldn't find one father, or one historical source that agrees with his assessment of the papacy. Not even the heretics and schismatics at the time argued such things.
But the claims of the papacy, including infallibility, universal jurisdiction, being visible head of the Church, and wielding the power of the keys is present in undeniable fashion from the writings of the fathers, the popes, in the acts of the councils, the private letters and public statements of patriarchs, emperors, bishops, popes and kings. It was accepted as a matter of course. It was never challenged; it was ignored at times, but was never challenged.
Nearly every objection to the Papacy is dealt with in extraordinary depth and completeness by St. Robert Bellarmine in his work "On the Roman Pontiff (https://mediatrixpress.com/product/on-the-roman-pontiff-by-st-robert-bellarmine/)" (available from Mediatrix Press).
My brother has no good will. I have shown him docuмent after docuмent, from popes, councils and patriarchs, that express in the clearest terms the claims of the papacy, and he is blind and deaf to it. I showed him Pope Leo the Great's letter 10 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604010.htm), as one of many examples, and read it to him. It had about as much effect as rain on a duck's back.
But if he will not believe the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18, then why would he accept the words of men? He has made up his mind, and has hardened his heart.
The bottom line is this: I don't quite know what information you're looking for.
Your posts in this thread have been excellent and informative. I always think of the orthodox as the first protestants.
-
And there are some Orthodox who want to take it one step further, and proclaim Moscow to be the "Third Rome", in that Constantinople doesn't really exist anymore as a center of Orthodoxy (the Ottoman Turks took care of that).
Rome isn't a center of "orthodoxy" today either, so......
-
This article may be of help:
"The Eastern Orthodox Church Accepted the Council of Florence" (https://web.archive.org/web/20230703041604/https://hieronymuscatholic.wordpress.com/2023/06/27/the-eastern-orthodox-church-accepted-the-council-of-florence/)
Of the quotes within this article, this one from the Emperor John VIII on the nature of Ecuмenical Councils is my favorite:
I consider that holy Church cannot err in any way in [defining] sacred teachings, when she has considered them in a common council. For while it is possible for one man or two or three or even more of those who are now living to be deceived when they consider among themselves, it is entirely impossible for the whole Church to be deceived, concerning which our Lord said to Peter: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” If it were otherwise, the saving word would have failed, and our faith would have no firm support. But since both these ideas are absurd, the Church of God must needs be infallible, and we must follow her judgment, myself in the first place, who by the grace of God wear the imperial garb.
-AG, 432, qtd. in Crean, p. 380.
As other posters have indicated, Eastern "Orthodoxy" has plenty of internal issues. Where to start? Even within the Greek Church alone, an honest investigation shows that they have a lot of the same problems as the Novus Ordo Church, only with (to their credit) a beautiful liturgy. The Patriarchate of Constantinople is liberal; the Greek Orthodox Church in America, even more liberal; and the Church of Greece (which is autocephalous) is conservative, and constantly fights with both. Here's a YT video produced by an Eastern schismatic on Abp. Elpidophoros, the highest ranking prelate in the Greek Orthodox Church of America:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6dBuopgoYg&pp=ygUSZWxwaGlkb3JvcyBoZXJldGlj
This isn't even factoring in how the Greek Old Calendarist groups relate to this dynamic, which may have a superficial resemblance to Traditional Catholic groups to the uneducated. An article on that subject from an "Orthodox" perspective:
"How the Greek Old Calendarists Became Radicalized and What the Result Has Been" (https://mospat.ru/en/authors-analytics/87148/)