Why I’m Not Roman Catholic Or Eastern Orthodox Part 6; Theses 101-120

  1. The Patristic Churches rejects the Regulative principle of Worship.

See my Systematic Theology Chapter 26.


  1. The Eastern Church Cannot explain how a Calvinist, Cyril Lucaris, became Ecumenical Patriarch of the Church in the 17th Century.


  1. The Eastern Orthodox attacks on Calvinism are half-read misunderstandings that only apply to Hyper-Calvinism. See my entire almost 800 page Systematic Theology.


  1. The Eastern view of the adoration of the host in the sacrament must have a corporeal presence which commits them to the abomination of Transubstantiation. You have a couple choices if you are in the Eastern Church:

    i.Say that the bread and wine takes the hypostasis of Messiah every time this ceremony is performed making Messiah one person and millions of natures, not two natures.

    ii. Say that the bread and wine take the substance of Messiah, while the accidents remain bread making Messiah’s humanity omnipresent and therefore committing you to a Eutychian Christology.

    McGukin says on page 187 and 188 that the metaphysical transformation in the incarnation is the basis for adoring the bread and wine in the sacrament. (McGuckin, John A. St. Cyril of Alexandria The Christological Controversy [New York* Leiden, The Netherlands* E.J. Brill*Koln, 1994] 187-188) Then on this view you have a metamorphosis not an Incarnation. This is Eutychian.

  1. The East says that God’s essence is darkness. As Lossky says in Chapter 2 of Mystical Theology- The Divine Darkness. Yet the scripture says, 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
  1. The East posits a union of ignorance with God, per Lossky’s Vision of God. If the personality is the intellect and the intellect is suspended in a union of ignorance it is a loss of personality. This is a pagan absorption theory.
  1. The primary criterion for determining the truth of God in the Anchoretic Churches is called the Consensus of the Fathers. The East cannot seem to construct any coherent definition of the consensus of the fathers any better than Rome.

Do they mean that a priest has the liberty to say whatever does not contradict the consensus of the Fathers (whatever that means) or do they mean that he can ONLY say what is agreed in the consensus of the Fathers? Georges Florovsky says in his Bible, Church Tradition (Vaduz, Europa: Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987) page 54,

“He [The Bishop-DS] must speak not from himself, but in the name of the Church, ex consensus ecclesiae. This is just the contrary of the Vatican formula: ex sese, non autem ex consensus ecclesiae. [From himself, but not from the consensus of the Church]…It is not from his flock that the bishop receives full power to teach, but from Christ through Apostolic Succession. But full power has been given to him to bear witness to the catholic experience of the body of the Church. He is limited by this experience, and therefore in questions of faith the people must judge concerning his teaching. The duty of obedience ceases when the bishop deviates from the catholic norm, and the people have the right to accuse and even to depose him…Christian authority appeals to freedom; this authority must convince, not constrain.”

  1. The Eastern Church does not even have a definition of what a Church is. Georges Florovsky says in his Bible, Church Tradition (Vaduz, Europa: Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987) on page 57, “It is impossible to start with a formal definition of the Church. For strictly speaking, there is none which could claim any doctrinal authority.”
  1. This Eastern Church’s antinomianism, moral relativism and nihilism is revealed in the fact that a huge number of them reject capital punishment. This is a clear rejection of Romans 13 and shows how Patristic Theology ultimately ends in nihilism, pacifism and self-destruction.
  1. If Only Persons Can Participate Not Natures, Then Human Nature Cannot Universally Participate in the Atonement; Thus No Christus Victor Per the Maximian soteriology, humanity participates in the atonement at the level of nature not hypostasis. Yet the Eastern Orthodox constantly make the argument that only persons act, not natures to deny the Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity. If only persons act then only persons can participate in the atonement. If the atonement is made for all and infuses into all then it infuses into all persons, thus Universalism. Universalism has been a popular belief in the Eastern Church from its inception and I am shocked that the East would allow such an innovation as particular redemption in their Universalist system.
  1. Referring to God as Huperousia is a Denial of the Hypostatic Union.
    Perry Robinson admitted, “If you had, trying to tar me with Gilbert’s position would be obviously absurd. I don’t separate the persons from the huperousia essence because I take the persons to be huper ousia also.” If both essence and hypostasis are huperousia, then there is no hypostatic union. You would then be left with an energetic union. If hypostasis is huperousia, energy is the only divine thing left for humanity to unite with in Christ.

Transition to Roman Ecclesiology

  1. Gregory Nazianzus: Oration 21.271.7; Wherein Athanasius is stated to be “entrusted with the chief rule over the people, in other words, the charge of the whole world”. Not a Roman but the Bishop of Alexandria.
  1. Registrum Epistolarum (Gregory the Great) Book V, Letter 43

“For, as your venerable Holiness knows, this name of Universality was offered by the holy synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title; since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this, far be it from the mind of a Christian, that any one should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honour of his brethren. While, then, we are unwilling to receive this honour when offered to us, think how disgraceful it is for any one to have wished to usurp it to himself perforce.”



  1. Concerning men considering the title universal bishop; Gregory I Book V, Letter 21: “Still it is very distressing, and hard to be borne with patience, that my aforesaid brother and fellow bishop, despising all others, should attempt to be called sole bishop. But in this pride of his what else is denoted than that the times of Antichrist are already near at hand? For in truth he is imitating him who, scorning social joy with the legions of angels, attempted to start up to a summit of singular eminence, saying, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven, I will sit upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North, and will ascend above the heights of the clouds, and I will be like the most High Isaiah 14:13. Wherefore I beseech you by Almighty God not to allow the times of your Piety to be polluted by the elation of one man, nor in any way to give any assent to so perverse a title, and that in this case your Piety may by no means despise me;”
  1. Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) Canon 39 “That the bishop of the first see shall not be called Prince of the Priests or High Priest (Summus Sacerdos) or any other name of this kind, but only Bishop of the First See”
  1. The Development of the Papacy, by Hector Burn-Murdoch, pg. 184 wherein is stated that in the Council of Aquileia 381 “only Spain and Rome are not represented” proving that the early councils did not regard the primacy of Rome for in this council it is Ambrose who presides and influences the emperor showing “Milan was at that time more illustrious than that of Rome” Calvin Inst/ iv.vii.2
  1. Second Council of Ephesus (The Robber Synod) wherein 1.) The council would later be condemned at Chalcedon in 451 2.) Proves that the Roman bishops did not have the primacy at the early councils and though they protested the proceedings their complaints fell upon deaf ears as if no recognized authority existed in them.
  1. Francis Turretin’s 7th Disputation; Whether it Can be Proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist
  1. Concerning the Papal Bull In Coena Domini that was originally published in the 14th century, wherein the Popes were boasted to be the monarchs of the world. After much opposition from rulers in the western world and fellow Catholics, the bull was abrogated in the 18th Century due to the threatening nature of it.
  1. The Assembly of Sorbonne in 1663 wherein no less than 36 Prelates constituted the Declaration of the Clergy of France of 1682, wherein the Pope was denied infallibility apart from the Church’s consent and Papal Deposing Power in toto.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s