In Jan Cardinal Willebrands, using a phrase taken from the ARCIC Final Report, had recognized that 'a new context' is now affecting the discussion of Anglican orders within the Roman Catholic Church because of the development of the thinking in the two Communions regarding the nature of the eucharist and ordained ministry. We wish to underline at the outset the limits of this study. We have focused our attention on factors that seem most to encourage the reconciliation of our two Communions. And there are recent developments which have been omitted from consideration in this statement, such as the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate within the Anglican Communion.
Refuting Eastern Orthodoxy This article contains content used from author: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and his followers i. This process continued through the ages, with the pope being able to change the process of election such as by instituting a college of cardinals if he so decided, since the pope has supreme authority in the Church from Christ Mt.
All individuals not elected in this fashion e. This logical framework holds true for all of history, and has allowed one to see which are the true popes and which are not — even if at some of the most difficult periods of Church history, such as the Great Western Schism, ascertaining the facts to correctly apply these principles was difficult enough that some mistakes were made by certain individuals.
I have thus described the consistent, logical framework of the succession of the authority given to St. Peter by Jesus Christ to the popes down through the ages. This shows that the Catholic Faith is consistent.
The authority given to St. Peter and his successors is the backing of the dogmatic councils; this is the authority which anathematizes those who deny the dogmatic councils' teaching.
Ephesus II the heretical monophysite council in had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I bishops. But if we apply the principles of Eastern "Orthodoxy," the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.
Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it's a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!
Equal results in a draw….
Doesn't it strike as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held afterwhich the Eastern "Orthodox" arbitrarily reject as "not accepted by the Church," even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept? What about the Council of Florencewhich saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence's teaching against all who would deny it?
How on Earth could one logically say that Florence was not accepted "by the Church," while other councils were? What are the criteria? I've asked many Eastern "Orthodox" this very question and received no answer simply because they have none. Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.
Yes, Eastern Orthodoxy cannot logically hold any council to be dogmatic and binding, as one will see if one honestly and deeply think about it. In Eastern Orthodoxy there is nothing which backs the anathemas of Ephesus or another council other than the word of bishops, who are equal to other bishops who many times taught the opposite.
If the "Church" spoke at Constantinople I because bishops came to it and pronounced authoritatively on faith, then the "Church" spoke at many other false councils in the early Church which had similar numbers of bishops!Orthodoxy signifies right belief or purity of faith.
How "Orthodox" became the proper name of the Eastern Church it is difficult to say. It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius, especially in the East, not with any idea of opposition against the West, but rather as the antithesis to the Eastern heretics — Nestorians and Monophysites.
Critical and other contrasts between the New Testament church and the church of Rome. Catholic apologists deceive souls by asserting that their church is uniquely the one true church .
Sponsored link. Overview: Christian denominations, whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant, have historically taught that an afterlife awaits caninariojana.com people will eventually spend eternity in either. Deformation of the New Testament church and and history relevant to the Reformation.
"Anglican Orders: A Report on the Evolving Context for their Evaluation in the Roman Catholic Church" (May 8, ) from the Anglican-Roman Catholic Consultation USA. Refuting Eastern Orthodoxy. This article contains content used from author: Brother Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery.
THIS REFUTATION QUICKLY EXPLAINS WHY THE EASTERN ORTHODOX POSITION, WHICH IS SCHISMATIC AND HERETICAL ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC TEACHING, IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL AND FALSE.