Eastern Orthodox And Other Christians

[dairygirl4u2c]

Here are two groups of people I would like someone to try and disprove. I contend that they have as much claim to being able to not be disproven as the Catholic Church. Please try to disprove them numbering them.

1.) Disprove that the Eastern Orthodox Church.

2.) Disprove christians who don't hold most of their beliefs as infallible.

3.) If you're up for it, disprove Islam.

A note. If my challenge does have some internal problems that would prevent them from working well, you are welcome to allow me to see the big picture.

[u][i][b]I realize that if we don't discuss our discussion, we won't make any real progress or people will be taking more from this than they logically should.[/b][/i][/u]

Once we have established the problems though, I will insist that no one post so that I can make my point in regards to ironmonk's thread.

Edited July 14, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[BeenaBobba]

I haven't got time to type out this huge response, so I'll start small. I believe that Orthodoxy isn't the one, true Church simply because the Orthodox have little unified, authoritative views on many things. They view the Bible and the first seven (or was it eight?) Ecumenical Councils as binding. Other than that, I'm not sure how they declare something to be dogma or doctrine, being that there is no one, superior authority in the Orthodox Church (unlike Catholicism, which has the Pope of Rome). After all, what happens when two Orthodox bishops disagree? Who are Orthodox Christians to believe? That leaves much up for grabs. If there are no Ecumenical Councils that say that Rome's primacy is heterodox, they can't exactly say that Catholicism is heterodox. Of course, this saws off the very branch they sit on.

God bless,

Jen

P.S. This issue is much more complicated than this. This is all I have time for now, though.

[BeenaBobba]

Muslims hold the NT in high regard, to the best of my knowledge, yet Jesus clearly said that no one shall come after Him. Muhammad claimed to be a prophet who came after Jesus and totally added more "rules." If Muslims rejected the Bible, this would make sense, but they don't. Their position simply isn't biblically consistent.

God bless,

Jen

[catholicguy]

1. The Eastern Schismatics ("Orthodox") were disproved by Saint Thomas Aquinas in [i]Opusculum contra errores Graecorum[/i] (On the errors of the Greeks). It suffices to say that the Eastern Schismatics deny the authority of the Pope, thus rejecting a necessary doctrine, committing heresy and being cut off as heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven. In addition to not believing in the authority of the Pope, they hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father and not from the Son. See Saint Thomas Aquinas's answer from Summa Theologica, I, Q. xxxvi, a. 2. Below is this answer from the Summa (from New Advent).


Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son?
Objection 1. It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. For as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must not dare to say anything concerning the substantial Divinity except what has been divinely expressed to us by the sacred oracles." But in the Sacred Scripture we are not told that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; but only that He proceeds from the Father, as appears from Jn. 15:26: "The Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 2. Further, In the creed of the council of Constantinople (Can. vii) we read: "We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son to be adored and glorified." Therefore it should not be added in our Creed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; and those who added such a thing appear to be worthy of anathema.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 4. Further, Nothing proceeds from that wherein it rests. But the Holy Ghost rests in the Son; for it is said in the legend of St. Andrew: "Peace be to you and to all who believe in the one God the Father, and in His only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the one Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father, and abiding in the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 5. Further, the Son proceeds as the Word. But our breath [spiritus] does not seem to proceed in ourselves from our word. Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 6. Further, the Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the Father. Therefore it is superfluous to say that He proceeds from the Son.

Objection 7. Further "the actual and the possible do not differ in things perpetual" (Phys. iii, text 32), and much less so in God. But it is possible for the Holy Ghost to be distinguished from the Son, even if He did not proceed from Him. For Anselm says (De Process. Spir. Sancti, ii): "The Son and the Holy Ghost have their Being from the Father; but each in a different way; one by Birth, the other by Procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another." And further on he says: "For even if for no other reason were the Son and the Holy Ghost distinct, this alone would suffice." Therefore the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son, without proceeding from Him.

On the contrary, Athanasius says: "The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

I answer that, It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above (28, 3; 30, 2). For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (28, 44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a "principle," and of what is "from the principle." Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess.

Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (27, 2,4; 28, 4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible.

Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

Reply to Objection 1. We ought not to say about God anything which is not found in Holy Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But although we do not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the sense of Scripture, especially where the Son says, speaking of the Holy Ghost, "He will glorify Me, because He shall receive of Mine" (Jn. 16:14). It is also a rule of Holy Scripture that whatever is said of the Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive term; except only as regards what belongs to the opposite relations, whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other. For when the Lord says, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," the idea of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, even though it be added that He proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not thereby be at all excluded; because as regards being the principle of the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son are not opposed to each other, but only as regards the fact that one is the Father, and the other is the Son.

Reply to Objection 2. In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Ghost, not implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, another council [Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus] assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

Reply to Objection 3. The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.

Reply to Objection 4. When the Holy Ghost is said to rest or abide in the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the Father. Also the Holy Ghost is said to rest in the Son as the love of the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature of Christ, by reason of what is written: "On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes" (Jn. 1:33).

Reply to Objection 5. The Word in God is not taken after the similitude of the vocal word, whence the breath [spiritus] does not proceed; for it would then be only metaphorical; but after the similitude of the mental word, whence proceeds love.

Reply to Objection 6. For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father.

Reply to Objection 7. The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other, as explained above, and in 27.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/103602.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/103602.htm[/url]


Sheer brilliance...

Now, as for propsition 2, anyone who holds that his faith is not infallible is clearly not a part of the Church founded by Our Lord, as it is written "And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19) This is the short explanation, a longer one can be provided if this does not illustrate enough. It is logical deduction. If the Church instituted by Almighty God Himself is infallible and anyone in this Church is assured that his Faith is correct, infallible, then anyone who is not assured that his faith is infallible is outside this Church and outside the necessary means for salvation.

The Muslims are a different story. If you want an argument presented which does not reference the Bible, that would take more time and consideration. If it is to a Muslim who believes in the inerrancy of the New Testament (or at least the Gospels), Matthew 16 suffices. There is much more to be said, of course, but this is enough to illustrate that he is not in the true Church. The only argument could be made is concerning the Eastern Schismatics (if someone claimed that they are the true Church), but, as is illustrated by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the [i]Summa Theologica[/i] and in [i]Opusculum contra errores Graecorum [/i], it is clear that they are not the true Church. It is enough to say that they have no authority to claim that they are the true Church, for they do not descend from Saint Peter. Even in practice, they were constantly making sure the Pope affirmed anything that they did (untill their bogus "excommunication" of him--after they were first excommunicated, I might add). There is no argument supporting the Eastern Schismatics, and if there is no argument supporting them, then there is certainly no argument supporting Protestants (or Muslims for that matter). Read that answer from Saint Thomas Aquinas, dispr

[catholicguy]

double post

Edited July 14, 2004 by catholicguy

[catholicguy]

triple post...computer problems, sorry

Edited July 14, 2004 by catholicguy

[Guest JeffCR07]

Also, with regards to the Orthodox Churches (plural), they are ultimately disproven by their own fathers, most notably St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom, both of whom voraciously upheld not only the Petrine Theory of Apostolic Succession, but also the Supremecy of the Pope above any other bishop, including that of Constantinople. Also, Socrates Scholasticus, in his 5th century [i]Ecclessiastical History[/i] upholds this as well. Each of these individuals played an absolutely crucial role in the development of Eastern faith (Scholasticus not nearly as big as the other two, however) and are held as pillars of the faith by the Orthodox Church.

I appologize for the admittedly vague response, these are just off the top of my head and I don't have available their writings just now, but if you are familiar with any of the Fathers that I mentioned, you will know that they supported the Papacy.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]both of whom voraciously upheld not only the Petrine Theory of Apostolic Succession, but also the Supremecy of the Pope above any other bishop, including that of Constantinople[/quote]

First a point. That is, they held to the supremecy of the pope, but did they hold to him being final and in anyway infallible? If the answer is no, is the development of doctrine used to justify modern claims to papal authority?

Now to the point of this thread in regards to the orthodox. Just because people now contradicted people then doesn't necessarily prove anything. If people now had herterogeneous beliefs and people then had heterogeneous beliefs, and if the orthodox church holds to not being infallible per se all the time but holds to councils deciding matters for the time being, then contradiction is possible. Who's to say the church isn't to work its way to the truth stumbling somewhat along the way?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Dairygirl, I apologize for the lack of clarity in my previous post. It was intended to be an addendum to CG's post, and meant to accentuate the inconsistancies in their beliefs, not only modern, but as compares to history.

Also, I think that while people stumble along the way to salvation, the Church does not. In Scripture Christ never mentions His Church stumbling, falling, tripping, dividing, or anything of the sort. Rather, when he speaks of His Church, he speaks of it never being overcome, and it always being supported by the Spirit.

That leads me to turn the question around: Why should we say that the Church "stumbles" along the way?

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[catholicguy]

DairyGirl, the Eastern Fathers supported the infallibilty of the Pope. This is one of many things that was never questioned from the beginning of the Church (along with Marian devotion, which the Eastern Schismatics also believe). In most cases, the first time Catholic beliefs are challenged are at the time of schisms and heresies because the Church does not change doctrine, so those who disagree (often not for theological, but for temporal reasons, e.g., almost all the Protestant Revolutionaries, Henry VIII, etc) often break away at the time of the doctrine in question. The Pope was always seen as the Head of the Church with full authority to make proclamations. Pope Saint Clement's Epistles to the Corinthians are a perfect example of this (c. 96).

[Guest JeffCR07]

If you havnt read them, they are wonderful testaments to not only apostolic authority in general, but to the infallibility and supremecy of the Roman Pontiff over all other bishops and churches.

[conservativecatholic]

I can disprove non-Catholic Christians and Muslims in a heartbeat.

[u]Non-Catholic Christians[/u]: Include 20,000 denominations
Took books out of [i]The Holy Bible[/i]
Established not by Jesus but by sinful people

[u]Islam[/u]: Jesus clearly said that no prophets would come after Him which disproves Islam and its beliefs that Mohammad was both the last and ultimate prophet.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I would make a slight addendum to the second part of that conservative (though your point still stands in all of its inarguable glory). Many were given the gift of prophecy, but Christ brought with him the Fullness of Truth, so the "line of prohets" came to an end. Mohammed claims to be the end of that line, which cannot be if you believe Jesus is the Christ.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

I recommend to the original poster to ask questions that can possibly be debated. It's hard to debate "Disprove the Eastern Orthodox Church." Instead focus on one aspect of it such as, "Prove that the Eastern Orthodox Church is in schism with Rome." Most churches that call themselves Orthodox in fact have valid sacraments and this cannot be disproven.

Besides, question 2 is a trap. You're asking us to disprove Christians; any point we make on this (not changing the subject) will become an ad hominem attack. Please focus on Christianity and propose a debate that focuses on a more specific point. It's hard to have a debate (this is the debate phorum, after all) when the debate topic is so huge that both sides can make several hundred points and none of them will be a counterpoint to one from the other side.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jul 15 2004, 03:49 AM'] Muslims hold the NT in high regard, to the best of my knowledge, yet Jesus clearly said that no one shall come after Him. Muhammad claimed to be a prophet who came after Jesus and totally added more "rules." If Muslims rejected the Bible, this would make sense, but they don't. Their position simply isn't biblically consistent.

God bless,

Jen [/quote]
Nope. They dont hold any of the revelations previous to Al Qur'aan in any regard. They believe them to be utterly corrupted, by early Christians to turn Jesus into God, for there own purposes. They would spit on the NT. Muslims have no high regard for any other book/s other than Al Qur'aan and Al Hadeeth.

[quote]If Muslims rejected the Bible, this would make sense, but they don't.[/quote]

They reject 'todays' bible. They accept one that was originally passed down from Jesus. This is imaginary, but this is the main belief, to avoid any connection to 'todays' bible