The Catholic Pope said Orthodox churches were 'defective.'

[ProScribe]

Article:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/10/pope-non-catholic-churches-defective/

Why did the Catholic Pope say Orthodox churches were defective?

(I don't understand how the OC could be defective)

 

[copticorthodoxy]

This is very old issue !!!!!!

 

[Protoevangel]

Way old!

But it was good that the pope was honest and open.

The church under the pope thinks that the Orthodox Church is defective because we are not his subjects.

We think the pope's church is defective because they teach novel doctrines and some outright heresy.

It is good to be open and honest, it's the only way real dialog can begin and the only way dialog can continue. May God bless the bishop of Rome for being open and honest. May God bless this honesty, and guide the Roman church to give up their errors, and be accepted back into the loving arms of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Amen!

 

[ProScribe]

This is very old issue !!!!!!

Not any older than your Christianity!!!

 

[Michael G]

Not any older than your Christianity!!!

Excuse me, but the Coptic Church is an ancient Church and even if we stick to the hard line position of it being in schism with Eastern Orthodoxy, its existence predates that of the Roman Catholic Church by 500 years. It also is pretty much free of heresy (the matter of the natures of Christ is more a misunderstanding between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Copts than anything) which is not something that I can say of Rome. Rome is ripe with heresy. The Copts could also do alot to teach the Roman Catholics about reverence, because last I checked the New Order Mass is completely lacking in reverence.

 

[Akathist]

I agree 100% with MIT's post except I don;t know anything about the New Order Mass so I can't say.

I do know many Catholics with the same level of reverence as we have as EO's.

The Catholic Pope's opinion on most everything is irrevelant to the EOC.

 

[Akathist]

Mod Hat

This thread was moved to St. Justin's Corner.
​

 

[Philothei]

this is another round of RC and EO contraversy... oh brother we have been there done that waaaaaaaay back there were a couple o fthreads aobut it....

*dead horse.. by now... sign*

 

[E.C.]

Yes, the pope has an opinion.

Yes, he communicated his opinion via the international media.

Yes, his opinion is that the Orthodox Church is defective.

Yes, we know that is what he thinks.

Yes, the schism is still in effect.

Yes, this is a very dead horse.

Yes, there is heresy which spouts from Rome onto her masses.

Yes, the whole "monophysite" thing was a misunderstanding which lead to a schism.

Yes, the opinion of said Roman pope has zero value towards Orthodoxy at this time.

Yes, I am having fun beginning each line like this!

 

[Michael G]

this is another round of RC and EO contraversy... oh brother we have been there done that waaaaaaaay back there were a couple o fthreads aobut it....

*dead horse.. by now... sign*

Dead horse? The horse has already become dogfood and been digested by all four of my dogs!!!

 

[Michael G]

Yes, the pope has an opinion.

Yes, he communicated his opinion via the international media.

Yes, his opinion is that the Orthodox Church is defective.

Yes, we know that is what he thinks.

Yes, the schism is still in effect.

Yes, this is a very dead horse.

Yes, there is heresy which spouts from Rome onto her masses.

Yes, the whole "monophysite" thing was a misunderstanding which lead to a schism.

Yes, the opinion of said Roman pope has zero value towards Orthodoxy at this time.

Yes, I am having fun beginning each line like this!

You forgot to say: "Yes, the pope is a heretic."

 

[E.C.]

You forgot to say: "Yes, the pope is a heretic."

Shhh! We can't state the obvious!

 

[Michael G]

Shhh! We can't state the obvious!

Ok. Yes, the Pope is furry and parasitical.

 

[copticorthodoxy]

Not any older than your Christianity!!!

What do you mean ???

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria has been established at 62 AD. by St. Mark the evangelist !

 

[Michael G]

What do you mean ???

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria has been established at 62 AD. by St. Mark the evangelist !

The Ethiopian Church is even older, it was established by the Ethiopian eunuch who was mentioned in the Gospel. Or maybe I am wrong.

Anyways, both Churches are far more ancient than Rome, which in its current form did not come to be until it was excommunicated at the Great Schism.

 

[E.C.]

Anyways, both Churches are far more ancient than Rome, which in its current form did not come to be until it was excommunicated at the Great Schism.

We can not forget the Carolingian Reforms and how they really put East-West relations on the ultra stale side before the Schism.

 

[Till]

We can not forget the Carolingian Reforms and how they really put East-West relations on the ultra stale side before the Schism.

I started reading this thread from the last post, the post quoted above. Well, sorry mate, but I could not help laughing when I saw your age and then read your "We can not forget" referring to something that has happened more than 1000 years ago.

What a strange view of church history and its meaning for us today this antagonistic statements testify to. What do you make of the ecumenical movement then? The Antichrist?

 

[Michael G]

I started reading this thread from the last post, the post quoted above. Well, sorry mate, but I could not help laughing when I saw your age and then read your "We can not forget" referring to something that has happened more than 1000 years ago.

What a strange view of church history and its meaning for us today this antagonistic statements testify to. What do you make of the ecumenical movement then? The Antichrist?

Antagonist? How is it antagonist for the poster you quoted to remind everyone of the mess Charlemagne made out of Christianity? It is often overlooked and very rarely taught in history class the impact Charlemagne had on the western church and how his reforms did much to harden the growing schism between Rome and Constantinople that would take another 2 1/2 centuries to formalize.

I find it strange when people jump in on threads and are completely out of the loop of that thread and yet make strange statements.

 

[Protoevangel]

I started reading this thread from the last post, the post quoted above. Well, sorry mate, but I could not help laughing when I saw your age and then read your "We can not forget" referring to something that has happened more than 1000 years ago.

What a strange view of church history and its meaning for us today this antagonistic statements testify to. What do you make of the ecumenical movement then? The Antichrist?

It all depends on what you mean by "ecumenical movement".

The only reason for the Orthodox to participate in the ecumenical movement, is to bring the schismatic faiths back into the arms of Holy Orthodoxy, which is the birthright of all Christians. This is true ecumenicism, carrying out the desires of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when He prayed "that they may be one as We are one", to the Father, in His High-Priestly Prayer.

If instead you mean some sort of amorphous unity based on an "I'm ok, you're ok" philosophy, glossing over real and essential doctrinal and schismatic problems (which is exactly the expressed purpose of such "ecumenical" organizations such as WCC), then yes, the ecumenical movement is of the antichrist.

 

[E.C.]

What I find a complete tragedy, is how St. Constantine is given the bad name and blame for making a supposed mess of Christianity when all he really did that was anything near theological, is call together the First Council of Nicea and say "we need a creed". Did he say what the creed shall read or not read? No. He just said we need one.

Unfortunately, the mess is hardly pointed to the one that made it: Charlemagne.

But I digress and that rant is over.

I started reading this thread from the last post, the post quoted above. Well, sorry mate, but I could not help laughing when I saw your age and then read your "We can not forget" referring to something that has happened more than 1000 years ago.

What a strange view of church history and its meaning for us today this antagonistic statements testify to. What do you make of the ecumenical movement then? The Antichrist?

Ya know, one of the many things that never ceases to amaze me is how much older folks (for sake of argument anyone between thirty and 172) seem to make some mountain out of the age molehill. Especially since the world of quasi-academia knows no age.

I don't see what is funny about an eighteen year-old minimum wage earning Yank pointing out something that is as forgotten as the Prayer Book Rebellion. I'm sorry, but the Carolingian Reforms skewed the West beyond any real recognition and seeing as they were somewhat relevant to the conversation at hand I saw it necessary to mention them.

Now, as for my opinion of ecumenical movements, I shall direct you to Protoevangel's post above. We appear to share the same opinion and he posted in a manner much more eloquent than what I could hope for.


And I ask you now; how am I an antagonist when I merely bring up something that was greatly relevant to the Great Schism of 1054? Not mentioning the Carolingian Reforms during discussions of the Schism is like having a discussion about the Theotokos without mentioning the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431. Or talking about a history of the UK without mentioning Ireland or Scotland and their respective rebellions.