www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What would make you Orthodox?

What a sad post! How many people have been seduced away from the Faith by the lies and distortions of Whelton and Schaeffer? I shudder to think of it.

With love and anguish, I beg you to consider the possibility that you may have been sold a bill of goods. I highly recommend James Likoudis's monograph, The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, a critique of Whelton's book. I own this monograph in xeroxed form, and I'd be very glad to lend it to you.

In it, Mr. Likoudis documents case after case where Mr. Whelton actually distorted and misrepresented the patristic record in order to make it look as if Fathers who supported papal primacy really didn't. In a few cases, Whelton apparently quoted part of a patristic passage -- even part of a sentence!! -- and carefully left the rest out, presumably because it testified to belief in papal primacy and thus undercut his own argument. In other cases, according to Likoudis, Whelton insisted (for example) that Pope St. Leo did not claim jurisdictional primacy...yet he (Whelton) conveniently "forgot" to mention entire letters and other documents that show just the contrary -- i.e., that Leo did in fact claim jurisdictional primacy. Likoudis correctly characterizes such glaring omissions as a "massive suppressio veri" -- suppression of the Truth.

Maybe Whelton didn't really realize what he was doing when he cut the Fathers into ribbons in order to paste together his distorted argument. But it's hard not to see such tactics as representing intellectual dishonesty.

I'm looking at Likoudis's monograph as I type. It shows, among other things, how Whelton misrepresents St. Cyprian, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Irenaeus, among others.

Just one example may suffice for present purposes: On page 39 of Two Paths, according to Likoudis, Whelton cites Cyprian: "To all the apostles after His resurrection, [Christ] gives equal power (parem potestatem) and says, 'As the Father has sent Me, so I send you.'" (De Unitate, 4)

But here's what Cyprian actually wrote -- the full quotation, with Likoudis's emphases added: "Upon one he builds His Church, and though to all the Apostles, after His resurrection, He gives a like power and says, 'As the Father has sent Me, so I send you,' yet in order that He might make clear the unity, by His authority, He has placed the source of the same unity, as beginning from one. Certainly, the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with equal fellowship both of honor and of power, but a beginning is made from unity, that one Church of Chirst may be shown."

This is very different from the misleading snippet provided by Whelton! In fact, in the full quote, Cyprian sounds a lot like the fathers of Vatican II in Lumen Gentium,describing the relationship between the Pope and the College of Bishops.

Another Cyprianic example: On page 35 of Two Paths, according to Likoudis, Whelton quotes Cyprian as follows: "For neither did Peter, whom the Lord first chose...when Paul disputed with him, etc."

But here is what Cyprian actually wrote: "For even Peter whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him...." [Ep. 71:3]

Golly-gee, I wonder why Whelton just happened to leave out the rather crucial phrase, "and on whom He built His Church"? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that patristic phrases like this undercut Whelton's entire anti-papal argument? :rolleyes:

Would you buy a used apologetic from this guy Whelton? I sure wouldn't.

Examples like this can be multiplied...and Mr. Likoudis muliplies 'em, believe me.

Likoudis comes under a lot of fire from my EO brethren...but I've never seen a single substantive argument against him. Rather, it's all ad hominem. If one is going to discredit the guy, one should dispute and disprove his arguments, right? But no one ever does. I submit that this is because Likoudis's arguments are fundamentally sound. He makes his case -- pretty unassailably, IMHO. He clearly shows that the patristic record (looked at in toto, not deliberately cut into strategic snippets) bears out papal claims. The patristic record is what it is. It shows what it shows. Amd what it shows is not very heartening for the anti-papalists, IMHO.

As for Cranky Franky Schaeffer, one of the most vitriolically anti-Catholic guys out there, who makes the monks of Mt. Athos look like ecumenical pussycats: As my cyber-acquaintance Anglican historian Edwin Tait has noted, the man is a fundamentalist, and his airy assertions that modern Orthodoxy is synonomous with primitive patristic Christianity are pure fantasy....no reputable historian would take such unsubstantiated assertions seriously.

If you're going to reject the Church Jesus founded upon Peter the Rock, fine...but at least do so on the basis of fair, full, objective research, I beg you. I think you owe it to yourself (and perhaps to Christ?) to investiate Whelton's and Schaeffer's claims critically. Please examine such biased pseudo-scholars as critically and as honestly as you would examine RCC apologists! Thank you!

And in the meantime, along with the monograph I mentioned, I would highly recommend Likoudis's recent book of the same title, a greatly expanded version of the monograph. You can obtain it from the author at jlikoudis@cuf.org.

You might also want to correspond with David Ignatius Brown, who has been down the same road you've trod...and come back. His website devoted to the writings of Pope St. Leo is a treasure-trove of accurate information on the pre-Schism Church's approach toward papal primacy.

Blessings,

ZT

What a sad post! How many people have been seduced away from the Faith by the lies and distortions of Whelton and Schaeffer? I shudder to think of it.

With love and anguish, I beg you to consider the possibility that you may have been sold a bill of goods. I highly recommend James Likoudis's monograph, The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, a critique of Whelton's book. I own this monograph in xeroxed form, and I'd be very glad to lend it to you.

In it, Mr. Likoudis documents case after case where Mr. Whelton actually distorted and misrepresented the patristic record in order to make it look as if Fathers who supported papal primacy really didn't. In a few cases, Whelton apparently quoted part of a patristic passage -- even part of a sentence!! -- and carefully left the rest out, presumably because it testified to belief in papal primacy and thus undercut his own argument. In other cases, according to Likoudis, Whelton insisted (for example) that Pope St. Leo did not claim jurisdictional primacy...yet he (Whelton) conveniently "forgot" to mention entire letters and other documents that show just the contrary -- i.e., that Leo did in fact claim jurisdictional primacy. Likoudis correctly characterizes such glaring omissions as a "massive suppressio veri" -- suppression of the Truth.

Maybe Whelton didn't really realize what he was doing when he cut the Fathers into ribbons in order to paste together his distorted argument. But it's hard not to see such tactics as representing intellectual dishonesty.

I'm looking at Likoudis's monograph as I type. It shows, among other things, how Whelton misrepresents St. Cyprian, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Irenaeus, among others.

Just one example may suffice for present purposes: On page 39 of Two Paths, according to Likoudis, Whelton cites Cyprian: "To all the apostles after His resurrection, [Christ] gives equal power (parem potestatem) and says, 'As the Father has sent Me, so I send you.'" (De Unitate, 4)

But here's what Cyprian actually wrote -- the full quotation, with Likoudis's emphases added: "Upon one he builds His Church, and though to all the Apostles, after His resurrection, He gives a like power and says, 'As the Father has sent Me, so I send you,' yet in order that He might make clear the unity, by His authority, He has placed the source of the same unity, as beginning from one. Certainly, the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with equal fellowship both of honor and of power, but a beginning is made from unity, that one Church of Chirst may be shown."

This is very different from the misleading snippet provided by Whelton! In fact, in the full quote, Cyprian sounds a lot like the fathers of Vatican II in Lumen Gentium,describing the relationship between the Pope and the College of Bishops.

Another Cyprianic example: On page 35 of Two Paths, according to Likoudis, Whelton quotes Cyprian as follows: "For neither did Peter, whom the Lord first chose...when Paul disputed with him, etc."

But here is what Cyprian actually wrote: "For even Peter whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him...." [Ep. 71:3]

Golly-gee, I wonder why Whelton just happened to leave out the rather crucial phrase, "and on whom He built His Church"? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that patristic phrases like this undercut Whelton's entire anti-papal argument? :rolleyes:

Would you buy a used apologetic from this guy Whelton? I sure wouldn't.

Examples like this can be multiplied...and Mr. Likoudis muliplies 'em, believe me.

Likoudis comes under a lot of fire from my EO brethren...but I've never seen a single substantive argument against him. Rather, it's all ad hominem. If one is going to discredit the guy, one should dispute and disprove his arguments, right? But no one ever does. I submit that this is because Likoudis's arguments are fundamentally sound. He makes his case -- pretty unassailably, IMHO. He clearly shows that the patristic record (looked at in toto, not deliberately cut into strategic snippets) bears out papal claims. The patristic record is what it is. It shows what it shows. Amd what it shows is not very heartening for the anti-papalists, IMHO.

As for Cranky Franky Schaeffer, one of the most vitriolically anti-Catholic guys out there, who makes the monks of Mt. Athos look like ecumenical pussycats: As my cyber-acquaintance Anglican historian Edwin Tait has noted, the man is a fundamentalist, and his airy assertions that modern Orthodoxy is synonomous with primitive patristic Christianity are pure fantasy....no reputable historian would take such unsubstantiated assertions seriously.

If you're going to reject the Church Jesus founded upon Peter the Rock, fine...but at least do so on the basis of fair, full, objective research, I beg you. I think you owe it to yourself (and perhaps to Christ?) to investiate Whelton's and Schaeffer's claims critically. Please examine such biased pseudo-scholars as critically and as honestly as you would examine RCC apologists! Thank you!

And in the meantime, along with the monograph I mentioned, I would highly recommend Likoudis's recent book of the same title, a greatly expanded version of the monograph. You can obtain it from the author at jlikoudis@cuf.org.

You might also want to correspond with David Ignatius Brown, who has been down the same road you've trod...and come back. His website devoted to the writings of Pope St. Leo is a treasure-trove of accurate information on the pre-Schism Church's approach toward papal primacy.

Blessings,

ZT

Please forgive double post! It was a boo-boo. (That's what happens when kids are yippin' atcha while you post. )

ZT

P.S. ChristTeen, I appreciate all your posts a lot, and I don't at all think you're lacking in humility!

Being thankful for participating on an open forum, and obviously being one of the poor, misguided Orthodox souls, I'll simply answer ZT's question regarding Likoudis. The reason why no one bothers with him is: No one takes him seriously. And he's not given anyone reason to.

Jeff, hang in there. And a blessed feast to all.

Priest Thomas Soroka
St. Nicholas Orthodox Church
McKees Rocks, PA
http://www.stnicholas-oca.org

Zoe,

PLEASE remember that there are Orthodox Christians on this forum and please, tone down the Rhetoric a bit. There are many Byzantine Catholics who do not believe that Papal Infallibility etc is a "divine" dogma in ANY Way but an outgrowth of Ultramontanism which is fairly recent.

It does no good to return polemics with even more polemics. We are all Eastern Christians, Orthodox or Catholic.




Peace,
Brian

Well thank you, Zoe.

Both of Likoudis' books are on my "Top 20 List of Books to Read."

ChristTeen287

P.S.- Let's keep this a peaceful post, everyone! Happy New Year and happy Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord (I'm sorry I cannot accept the Roman change!)

Brian wrote:

I agree with Brian's second paragraph...I am, however, one of those Byzantine Catholics who do accept the Church's teaching on the papacy...so on that point we disagree. I believe that Orthodox are special guests here and should be accorded more deference than some other guests. Having said that, I think we should be able to express what we believe clearly as long as it is respectful to all.

I have not read Mr Likoudis' book so I can't comment on it. Some have told me that he is not as sensitive to the Eastern side of the Church as he should be (as someone who writes on such issues) but that's only what I've heard from others. Sometimes Latin apologists are very weak in their appreciation of the Eastern Church. I'm not saying this about Mr Likoudis as, again, I haven't read his work. I have seen this in some other situations, however.

Fr Thomas' comment ("no one takes him seriously") does remind me of a comment Fr John Meyendorff said about Pope St Agatho who claimed the the Roman See had never erred. Fr Meyendorff similarly said, "No one took him seriously." (I believe this can be found in _Rome, Constantinople and Moscow_...the book is not at hand and I may even be misquoting the title...but the essence is there somewhere.) Personally, I think Fr Meyendorff's work is much more reliable than either Schaeffer or Whelton but even here I think Fr Meyendorff (of blessed memory) is viewing history anachronistically.

Where is the contemporary evidence that `no one took St Agatho' seriously? Granted, popes could be censored...especially if the Emperor was involved (the case of Vigilius comes to mind). Yet, even though the Emperor was successful in having Vigilius' name removed from the diptychs it was made clear they were still somehow maintaining communion with the Apostolic See (perhaps a form of sede vacantism?)

The evidence produced by the Schaeffer types (which usually promote the same type of argumentaion as Abbe Guettee' _The Papacy_) is even more one-sided than some Latin apologists I've seen. There's a lot more evidence for a special Petrine charism manifested in the See of Rome in the early Church than they'd want to admit. Now, it's not a fully developed papacy such as we see in the second millennium...it was more conciliar to be sure. Yet, it was not, IMO, just a "first among equals."

I hesitate to weigh in on these threads, however. First, I firmly believe what _Dominus Iesus_ says that our brothers and sisters in Orthodoxy are part of the Church and I do not want to be misinterpreted as somehow saying they are outside of it. In all humility, we Byzantine Catholics are not an attractive place for many Orthodox. This is something our Latin brothers are mostly unaware of. There are many, many vibrant Orthodox parishes...especially the newer, more recent parishes. They are missionary minded. There is a full schedule of services. There is an almost palpable excitement in these parishes. Byzantine Catholic parishes like this are few. Even smaller are those which have anything close to a full schedule of services. Most Byzantine Catholic parishes have abbreviated services with many traditions missing or gutted. Some here may disagree with me...but I think humility requires us to acknowledge this. Quite often we see folks come to our services and get excited about the Eastern Church. They want all the tradition...but they feel they can get more of it in Orthodoxy and they end up going over to Orthodoxy instead of staying with us. Several of my best friends have gone this route.

I'm firmly convinced of the necessity of the Petrine ministry in the Church. I'm also strongly persuaded that what our Church needs is to re-discover her heritage and firmly embrace it.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

David, this is a very insightful, enlightening post. I had no idea that Byzantine Catholic parishes tended to be less vibrant (and hecne less attractive) than their Orthodox counterparts. The only one I'm familiar with (at secondhand) is Sts. Cyril & Methodius in Cary, NC, and I've heard that that parish is very vibrant indeed.

I beg forgiveness of my Orthodox brethren for any offense I've given. I get carried away sometimes. And I certainly didn't mean to suggest that anyone on this forum was a "poor, misguided soul." Least of all a holy priest! Really!

OTOH, with all due respect, Brian, I certainly don't see papal infallibility as an outgrowth of ultramontanism. ISTM that the term "ultramontanism" can be used as a cudgel to suppress argument.... Perhaps that sort of rhetoric should be toned down as well. Know what I mean?

Anyhoo, thanks again, Dave, for your very balanced anc charitable post! May it be an example to me. (My New Year's Resolution is to think --and pray! -- before I post. )

Blessings,

ZT

Zoe,

I may be guilty of some overstatement and there are some problems in a few of these vibrant Orthodox parishes. There are some wonderful Eastern Catholic parishes out there. But, even among these...the difference between following an authentic Byzantine praxis with most Orthodox parishes is, IMO, immense. I think we have a lot to learn from our Orthodox brethren in restoring our traditions.

Wishing you and all here a happy New Year and a blessed Feast Day!

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

There's no doubt about it: for Byzantine Catholics to really get great parishes like the esteemed St. Elias'it'll take hard work, zeal, focus, and A LOT of prayer. I have confidence that Byzantine Catholicism will prevail and shine through as brightly as it did in the first millenium, but this will come at some cost and will take generations. Might as well start now!

ChristTeen287

Hey I didn't look to this thread cause it looked sooooooooooo long and I was lazy I regret it, this thread seems to be quite interesting and hot, I'll take some time to read everything.

I haven't read James Likoudis books but I have had some contact with him recently and although I don't share his liberal views on many things, I think it is uncharitable to attack a person's ideas (I don't mean that someone has attacked him here) without any proof stating that what he says is truly false.

The problem I see with him is that after he left the Orthodox Church he tried to be more Latin than the Latins (which would be very humanly understandable if he had become a traditional Latin catholic but he didn't!) and that he wasn't truly loyal to the Eastern Church, I think his claims would be more legitimate if he was Eastern.

About Mike Whelton, I am sure he's a very good writer and it would help a lot if he writes another book answering Likoudis.

On the other side, I liked the term "Catholic in Communion with Cosntantinople"

Zoe,

I am sorry if I came off uncharitably. Please forgive me, a sinner. We simply disagree profoundly on this issue but what this sinner (MYSELF) has to understand how to do , to paraphrase the Psalmist,is to shut my trap at times! We can disagree in charity.

I have a dear friend who is Russian Byzantine Catholic and who does not use the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" as he sees this as offensive to the Orthodox. I, coming from the Eastern Catholic Church to Orthodoxy, would NEVER use or tolerate the word "Uniate" to be used in conversation without protest (yes, this is a very Celtic response!
I do, as DtBrown indicates, see a fullness in Orthodoxy that I did not find in the Eastern Catholic Churches, no matter how much I loved and still love them. This was not only a matter of fullness of the Services but of theology and Spirituality. But that is just me. I DEEPLY admire what parishes like St Elias are doing. They are a Great and Holy model for the Churches both Eastern Catholic and Orthodox and maybe more then this , as a witness to our secular society at large!

Here Endeth the Lesson and Happy New Year to all in the List!

Brian in Sacramento

Regarding Likoudis, I had never heard of him before I joined this forum. Being the open minded person that I am, I read many of the articles that are on his site. I also asked various well-read Orthodox friends about him. Most had never heard of him, but of those who had, all were in agreement, as I also concluded. He's not taken seriously. The most obvious reason (which jumped out at me during the first article of his that I'd read) was that he's famous for stating that (paraphrased) "we should keep in mind that most heresies originated in the East," the implication being that "the east is prone to error."

Well, hello? From the apostolic period to the patristic period, 95 percent of Christians lived in the East. Most theology was originating in the East. The ecumenical councils were in the East. The Emporer was in the east. Four of the five ancient patriarchates are in the East. Etc... Has he ever heard of the dark ages? Does he think that was in the East too? He even concludes, if I remember correctly, that the Orthodox are just protestants. And he wants to be taken seriously?

Like many who approach church history from a strictly Western perpective, Likoudis makes the mistake of seeing the East as a footnote, as a cultural oddity, not for what it really was, the center of Christian thought and growth during that particular period.

ZT goes on to make this quote from a "noted" Anglican historian, "airy assertions that modern Orthodoxy is synonomous with primitive patristic Christianity are pure fantasy....no reputable historian would take such unsubstantiated assertions seriously." This particular quote is so innane that I'm almost speechless. Has this scholar spoken to one of the foremost authorities in the world on Church history, Jaroslav Pelikan, who recently converted to Orthodoxy? Or is Pelikan now just fantasizing also?

Given ZT's conclusions, I can't imagine why any self-respecting Eastern Catholic would want to use the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome," if Orthodoxy is indeed in such serious error.

Priest Thomas Soroka
St. Nicholas Orthodox Church
McKees Rocks, PA
http://www.stnicholas-oca.org

Father, bless!

I took Zoe's comment to be a critique of Franky Schaeffer and not Orthodoxy, per se. I may be wrong but I can't imagine Dr Pelikan (who I deeply respect) sharing many of Mr Shaeffer's views.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com