James Likoudis, the Phony Convert – and the Rudest Roman Catholics on the Internet

by CzechRebel on July 29, 2013

in CzechRebel (blog admin), flame war, Orthodox Christianity, Roman Catholic Church, YouTube

Will the last guy to leave Rome please lock the Coliseum?

The Orthodox Christian faith has enjoyed a steady stream of conversions from all other Christian confessions. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, is facing serious crises from many directions. To take the heat off the multitude of problems besetting their faith, some Roman Catholics are working to create an image that converts are flocking in from every direction. One direction – the East – poses a particular problem for Rome in terms of finding converts. Seventy years or so ago, this would have not been much of a problem. There were too few Orthodox Christians in the US to matter. Orthodoxy in the US was primarily an ethnic institution made up of immigrants and their recent offspring. Leaving the “old religion” was seen to some as part of the Americanization process. This was partly because too few Orthodox Christians born in the Americas were adequately catechized in their own faith. Of course, even fifty years ago, there was very little written in the English language about the Orthodox faith. What little material existed was either poorly written, anti-Orthodox, or both.

So, the present-day Roman Church seems to have focused on creating the image that people are flocking in to her ranks. The number, and the level of doctrinal knowledge, of converts from Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism is unimpressive. The two faiths differ so greatly that it would be hard for to make the case for conversion so that any aspect of Roman Catholicism would appeal to Orthodox Christians.

Enter James Likoudis.

Some people will do anything to sell a book or two

James Likoudis
James Likoudis

James Likoudis is your typical shameless, self-promoting author. He has been writing books to sell to Roman Catholics since the 1970s. Of course, there are so many more Roman Catholics than Orthodox Christians who read English, so he has a great market. It has been said that truth is the first casualty of war; unfortunately, truth often is one of the first casualties of book selling as well.

A Roman Cathoic propaganda television station ran an extensive interview with James Likoudis. It was uploaded to a YouTube series in January, 2010. Likoudis claims to be a former Orthodox Christian, but his knowledge of the Orthodox Church seems to be sketchy at best. One YouTube commenter pointed out that Likoudis could not even pronounce a commonly used Greek liturgical word. (Don’t look at me; I am not Greek.)

We love our good Roman Catholic friends

Again, our standard disclaimer. We do have many Roman Catholic friends. Please don’t take this personally. We are only pointing out that some people, in the name of Rome, are doing some nasty things. We still love you. But lies are lies and truths are truths.

The Papal barrier

The first thing that every Roman Catholic must know about Orthodoxy is how distasteful we find the Papacy. Saying that the Pope could possibly be “infallible,” even under the most unusual circumstances, verges on making the Pope into a “god.” Any hope of ever merging the two faiths would require Rome to renounce its current concept of the Papacy. Yet, Likoudis leads with this concept. It seems impossible that anyone who had ever been in the Eastern Orthodox faith could make such a major error.

Who is this guy, anyway?

Likoudis is a slippery character. While he claims to have converted to Roman Catholicism in 1952, we could not find any reference to his age. How old was he when he became Roman Catholic? Perhaps he was five years old when he “converted.” That would explain his very shallow understanding of the Eastern Orthodox faith. On the other hand, perhaps he was already twenty-five years old when he converted, old enough to envision a potential career as a Roman Catholic apologist in the offing. Of course, the whole thing could have been made up; perhaps he never was Orthodox, which would explain why he would expect Orthodox Christians to believe his nonsensical babbling.

Of course, we are not the first Orthodox Christians to accuse Likoudis of being disingenuous. Joseph Suaiden simply takes Likoudis apart in a 2002 article. Suaiden’s second refutation of Likoudis is equally impressive.

You got that one backwards, Jim

Early in the interview, Likoudis makes one of the most ridiculous assertions about the Great Schism that we have ever heard. While the official date for the Schism is 1054 AD, most Orthodox sources see it as something that had been brewing much earlier. (We will let our Roman Catholic friends fill in any details they may have). Yet, Likoudis claims it came later!? He even speaks of Council of Florence as pre-Schism. A major feature of Florence was to try to woo us back with promises of protection from a certain Muslim invasion. The Schism was set so far in stone at that point that we gladly faced martyrdom and slavery to Muslims, rather than to return to communion with what we view as a heretical faith. How anyone who had been Orthodox for fifteen minutes or so could have missed that is beyond us.

The tale of two creeds

Likoudis tried to underplay the role of the Filioque in the Schism. Simply put: The Pope included the Filioque in the Creed one time and that was enough for the Orthodox to remove the Pope from our prayer list. The Pope was so irate that he sent a half-baked Cardinal to serve a “Bull of Excommunication” against the Patriarch of Constantinople. Sounds to us like it was pretty important. However, Likoudis tries to soft pedal this major reason as no longer being so important to us today.

Likoudis tried create the false image that the Orthodox rejection of Papacy is something of recent vintage. The East has always considered it a heresy to put one bishop over all others. Even when we have a bishop with a special honor or administrative duty, we refer to that bishop as being “first amongst equals.” Besides, the role of the Pope in the West clearly developed post-Schism. The final step did not occur until 1870, when the Pope officially claimed to be “infallible.” And Roman Catholics fall all over themselves trying to explain that one. Sometimes, they say the Pope was always infallible. Sometimes, it is only after 1870 and only when the Pope says so. Of course, many Roman Catholics feel that the Pope is only infallible when he happens to agree with them on a particular issue. Anything anywhere between those three views works for some Roman Catholics, at least some of the time.

Church and state

Likoudis lies when he says that the civil governments have always controlled the Eastern Church. Sometimes they have tried. We have a number of our Saints who are bishops who resisted. We have had bishops who yielded too much to Orthodox secular leaders. We are not defending it, but it has happened. However, the norm in Orthodoxy is our own version of a separation between civil and ecclesiastic leaders, which existed even before it was cool in Western thinking.

Neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic

Orthodoxy needs neither an “infallible” leader or an “inerrant” book. While the former is clearly Roman Catholic and latter Reformation Protestant, to our way of thinking they both sound more like Islam than Christianity. In Orthodoxy, the only perfection that we seek is found in God. Likoudis’ claim that our problem is the lack of such a Naziesque leader is very insulting.

Contrary to Likoudis’ lies, Orthodoxy has dealt well with heresies. That is the reason we had the Seven Ecumenical Councils. (Unless Likoudis is admitting that Roman Catholicism, the so-called “Latin Heresy,” is the one we have not been able to deal with thus far?).

We do take marriage seriously in the East

Eastern Orthodoxy take marriage much more seriously than the Western Church do. Perhaps, this is best demonstrated by the actor Tony Shalhoub in his fiction role as television detective Monk. Adrian Monk is completely devoted to late wife and acts as though she were still alive. Funny in the show, but to an ideal Orthodox standard. While certainly not a requirement of the Church, often Orthodox widows and widowers await their mates in the next world, sometimes joining monasteries during the Earthly wait. Orthodoxy, however, recognizes human failings, which includes divorce. Orthodox clergy, of course, can never remarry, not even if the wife dies. The priest must either leave the priesthood or become a monk. Orthodox laity must receive permission for any second marriage. A Roman Catholic with the misfortune to have a serious of spouses die can continue to remarry with no set limit or guidelines. Of course, Likoudis’ spin on our practices is totally disingenuous.

Mission Impossible

Likoudis lies to his Roman Catholic audience claiming that East-West unification is close at hand because the Pope now speaks freely to the Patriarchs. Unless the Pope is considering ending the Papacy, nothing could be further from the truth. No Patriarch has the power to change the faith. No Patriarch has the power to take any church that does not confess the same faith into communion with his see.

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend there is a Patriarch or Metropolitan or Archbishop who is willing to “reunite” his see with Rome. He would certainly be removed from office, perhaps defrocked, and perhaps even excommunicated. The other Bishops in that see simply would not stand for it. We don’t have Earthly heads in the East.

Let’s go one step further out on a limb. Suppose that particular hierarch were able to convince enough of his fellow bishops to come along with him. Perhaps the Vatican offered enough money to help that see with its expenses. Perhaps there has been a scandal and Rome will help cover it up for them. We can almost guarantee a schism within that see. Local schisms have occurred for less important reasons than that.

What would happen to the faithful, if something like this were to occur? Well, it is extremely unlikely that many would remain in the faction that went with Rome. Perhaps a very popular hierarch might be able to attract five percent or so, and that would be only because they kept their Eastern Rite practices. Back in the day when Rome could apply considerable political pressure, it was able to lure or push people into “Eastern Rite Roman Catholic” a/k/a “Uniate” parishes and dioceses as an alternative to war. However, Roman has no more Christian armies at her disposal. Anyone who wants to be Roman Catholic today need only find one of their churches. Those who do not are unlikely to follow a schismatic bishop to Rome. That fact is sadly lost on Likoudis.

Ecumenical Councils normally don’t start out being called as such. Orthodoxy has had many, many councils during its long history. However, only seven are considered “ecumenical.” A council only becomes “ecumenical” when it is universally recognized within the Church. First, the bishops recognize it. Then the clergy recognize it. Finally, the laity. Calling it an “Ecumenical Council” in advance won’t make it one or even help it become one. Yet, Likoudis seems to think this is one way that Rome might force all the Eastern Orthodox back into the fold. What a joke! We are NOT going. Our priests will not try to take us. Their bishops will not try to take our priests to Rome. This has been tried twice. Once for the sake of Christian unity. Once to try to keep Muslim invaders out of Constantinople. If we wouldn’t do it for those reason, why would we do it to further inflate James Likoudis’ giant ego?

Prayer for the invasion of Russia

Now that Russia is free, Likoudis evidently wants to invade it. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Church, a prayer was often said for “the conversion of Russia.” In a world where even young children expected someday to be in a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, this prayer for your moral enemy was quite a statement. Unless we are mistaken, that practice fell by the wayside in the Roman Church at about the time of the Second Vatican Conference. Well, Russia has been converted! It now boasts the more Orthodox Christians than any nation on the planet. This must really grieve the Roman-Catholic-first-and-God-whenever crowd. Likoudis, like so many other whack jobs in the Roman Church, wants to “consecrate Russia” now. Gee, where were y’all when we were fighting to get rid of the Communists? Likoudis, take your schismatic hands off Christian Russia!

So, you need us?

Likoudis admits that they need our “traditions” and liturgical beauty. If you want them, Jimmy boy, they come with a price. Renounce the Roman Church and come to any Eastern Orthodox Church. (Note that I did not say “come back” as you haven’t convinced us that you were ever Eastern Orthodox).

One of the most laughable things about Likoudis’ rant is the way he sees the Orthodox flexibility and economia as “confusion.” For example, some Orthodox priest will receive converts who have already had a Trinitarian Baptism into the Orthodox faith via chrismation, while others re-baptize. Once received into the Orthodox Church it does not matter to any of us. However, only a Fuehrer making all the rules and micromanaging every aspect of our spiritual lives will make Lidoudis happy. Just leave Jimmy unhappy. He only wants trouble anyhow.

Ancient faith, not whatever Rome dreams up next

The Orthodox faith is about the “faith once given” (Jude 3). Any “dogmatic developments” contrary to that faith is anti-Orthodox. Yet, one of Likoudis’ complaints is our lack of “dogmatic developments.” Plainly stated, Likouds is complaining that we have not strayed from the true faith. On this one, Likoudis sounds downright Satanic.

So, who is pushing the Likoudis agenda?

If you want to find some of the rudest and most hateful Roman Catholic supporters of Likoudis’ nonsense, look for a YouTube series The Journey Home: James Likoudis’ Conversion from Eastern Orthodoxy.

Smiley hanging onto a YouTube sign; it breaks off and falls on him

However, if you plan to post comments on that YouTube series, be forewarned. You will be banned as a “troll” if you say anything sensible for any length of time. These people are totally incapable of handling a reasonable debate. They view a typical Orthodox Christian as one who must be in complete agreement with Likoudis and his nonsense, and just waiting with bated breath for the Orthodox Church to discard its 2000-year-old beliefs and become Roman Catholic. The head nasty who moderates the YouTube page accused fellow blog admin 1389 of being an “Evangelical.” That is right, they accused a notorious Orthodox apologist of being an Evangelical!

But then, it is good to know who the real enemies of the Orthodox Church are. Come to think of it, Mkvine and his band of nitwits are enemies of the Roman Catholic Church as well. By promoting a fraud like Likoudis, they are actually making the Roman Catholic Church look worse than it actually is. And Rome has enough troubles these days without them causing more.

Again, our apologies to our Roman Catholic friends. Perhaps we never thank you enough for not acting like Mkvine and those clowns who support Likoudis.

Also see:

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Prince Lazar July 30, 2013 at 5:44 pm

So, true. Searching for some anti-Likoudis stuff, I found this. They banned me for making a very obvious point. That is, that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have little, if anything, in common. I told them that we, the Orthodox, have more in common with our Southern Baptist brethren then the Roman Catholics. At first, they said that was “astute” or “perceptive” or something like that. I thank them and then MkVine banned me, saying that she had been being “sarcastic.” I think MkVine is a she. Men are not usually like that. But, male of female, MkVine seems like a really unstable individual.

Nice to see another Orthodox blog out there. Seems like you people take on some secular issues too. Thanks for the article. I thought it was just me. Now, I feel better.

2 CzechRebel July 31, 2013 at 12:49 am

@Prince Lazar

Thank you. I wonder how many of us have been banned from that YouTube page. They don’t seem to want to hear anything from anyone who is currently practicing Orthodoxy. I guess you could say that we don’t want to hear anything from anyone who is actually practicing Islam either. But, we have posted some of their comments. And the last thing we want is to merge with the Muslims. Yet, these Roman Catholic bozos want to speak of “reuniting” with us. Well, I am not sure that you can “reunite” with something that is totally different from when you were together. Oil and water don’t mix. When we were both oil, things were different.

However, if they want to be one with us, they need to hear what we have to say and see what objections we would have. Yet, they live in this fantasy world where one of our Bishops can sit down with their Pope and we will be all happily following along. But, as we all know, none of our Bishops have the power to enter into communion with anyone of a different faith. Of course, none of our Bishops have the power to change the faith either. Such a Bishop who would dare to do such a thing would be removed from any position of authority. He would also risk being defrocked, if not excommunicated.

So, you try to get down to brass tracks and tell them what they would have give up in order to be part of our faith, they just freak. No more “infallible” Pope, no more Sacred Heart, no more Immaculate Conception (of the Virgin Mary), no more mandatory celibacy from the priesthood, no more Purgatory and more ANYTHING that they thought of post-Schism. I have yet to find even one Roman Catholic who would submit to those terms. Yet, they want to lecture us about “how close we are.”

3 Tony Parisi November 15, 2014 at 12:01 pm

Wow! I was totally repulsed by your article on Mr. Likoudis’ character. I must say that your intellectual midgetry, unabshed calumnies, ignorance of History, and assorted lies, really come up vividly in your vile screed. It is one thing to respectfully disagree, another to resort to personal attacks. I have a question for you: “After spewing so much venom and vitriol at Likoudis, do you confess before receiving Holy Communion?” Just remember that CALUMNY is as much a sin in my Church, as it is in yours. I know Mr. Likoudis for 20 years, and am honored to be his friend. He is a scholar, a gentleman, a true Catholic, a seeker of Truth, and a moral upright man.
Frankly, an apology to Mr. Likoudis is in order; if not, then shame on you!

4 CzechRebel November 15, 2014 at 5:19 pm

Listen to the tape series again. Likoudis is a pathological liar unable to distinguish truth from his deranged fantasies. I cannot think of a higher honor than the word “shame” from a Likoudis supporter.

My intellect and that of fellow blog admin 1389, are very high, as ANYONE, friend or foe, who knows us personally will attest to. That is right. We collect enemies like some people collect coins or stamps but even those who know us and hate us never seem to challenge our brain power. So, that shows you are not so swift yourself.

Calumny? My, my, my what a big word for such self-described intellectual midget. It is simple projection. You are known for your lack of smarts so you jump on the Internet and accuse those far smarter than you of not having brain power. Let’s see your blog. Let’s see some examples of your great writing ability. Oh, you don’t have one and you cannot write a whole article? Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Everything 1389 and I say (and this better go for works of our many contributing authors) can be verified. Most of what Likoudis says about Orthodoxy is demonstrably incorrect. So, unless he is really stupid, he is a liar. (We’d be glad to take this down if you admit that Likoudis is really stupid but he is the only guy they could get for that show who claims to have left the Holy Orthodox Church to become Roman Catholic.)

Of course, we take Communion, the real thing, at our respective Orthodox Churches. We wouldn’t dream of taking it at a Roman Catholic church, or a Baptist church or a Methodist church, as those are not the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Of course, the Baptists and the Methodists admit that theirs is merely symbolic.

And we have much more historical knowledge then you ever will. Read the whole blog and see!

5 Robert Fastiggi November 16, 2014 at 1:58 pm

Editor’s Note: Sometimes we choose to respond to our more caustic commenters within their own comments. (It is our blog–we pay to keep it up–the trolls do not. So we can do what we will.) Why this year-old post is suddenly generating comments from our detractors is also interesting. So, our answers to this comment will be in italics and interspersed among the statements in the original comment.
– CzechRebel Blog Admin

I was very saddened to read such uncharitable attacks directed against my friend, James Likoudis.

Well, that is too bad. If Mkvine had played fair with us, we won’t have written this article. It has been said, “Never argue in writing with anyone who buys ink by the barrel.” Mkvine knows we had a serious blog that generates more traffic in a day than his videos do in a year. We were playing fair and we pointed out Likoudis’ lies and mischaracterizations nicely. Mkvine chose to block me and several other Orthodox Christians because he (or she) lacks the brain power to deal with us.

We have documented Likoudis’ prevarication and, of course, no one can refute our claim. We know a con artist when we see one, and Jim Likoudis is an obvious con artist. So, if you equate our telling the truth with an “attack,” so be it.

I think most people would expect more from Orthodox Christians.

We Orthodox don’t much care what you folk from heterodox confessions of faith expect from us. We focus on what our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, expects of us. Many of us have died a martyr’s death rather than do what the heterodox wish us to do.

Only one Scripture is needed to cite in this regard: “And if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have charity, I am nothing.” 1 Cor 13:2.

It is far from charitable to set the record straight against a liar like Likoudis. The modern term is “tough love.” We have document some of Likoudis’ lies and you can find others. Perhaps you need to read an old folk tale known as “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Everyone was being so “charitable” that no one told the poor Emperor that he had been taken and was walking around in his underwear (assuming the Biblical definition of ‘nakedness’ which could stop short of the full Monty). Finally, a little boy stated the obvious. Well, Likoudis is walking around in his spiritual underwear and it is NOT a pretty sight.

With regard to the authority of the Pope, Mr. Likoudis is taking the same position as the Eastern Father, St. Theodore of Studium (759-806).

So what?

It never ceases to amaze us how stupid and/or dishonest you militant Romans church people are.

THE OPINION OF ONE SAINT NEVER MEANS ANYTHING IN ORTHODOXY!

We see this over and over and over again. Our authority is the Holy Spirit! He speaks to the entire Orthodox Church. Only those things that are accepted by the whole Orthodox Church matter. Yet, ignorant Roman Catholics try to find some ancient writing, use the Roman Catholic translation of the document, cite it out of context and expect an Orthodox Christian to be swayed.

It doesn’t work! It never will work! And it cannot possibly work!

In a remark often attributed to Albert Einstein, the definition of “insanity” is to do the same thing over and again and expect a different result. So, if you drag out a passage of from some other Saint or Father of the Church and expect to convince us, Al Einstein and 1389 Blog will know that you are crazy.

We have seen that quote before. By your own admission, St. Theodore died in 806 AD. The Photian Schism did not even occur until 863 AD. A go-it-alone, Rome-only, conference occurred in 800 AD. The East NEVER accepted that council. So, from 800 AD on, schism was always in the cards. It’s not going to matter what any saint said.

St. Theodore was one of the great defenders of the veneration of icons against the iconoclast heretics who had been condemned by Nicaea II in 787. The Popes had always defended the use of icons, and this might help to explain why St. Theodore regarded Rome as the judge of all heresies. In a letter to Pope Leo III, he writes:

Yes, the previous orthodoxy of many Popes in that regard might explain why poor St. Theodore was blinded to the Truth.

For it is to the great Peter that Christ our God, after having given him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, conferred the dignity of chief of the flock.

Again, it is an unshakable Orthodox doctrine that the chief of the flock is ALWAYS the local reigning Bishop. We have no “bishop of bishops.” Each reigning Orthodox Bishop holds Peter’s Keys and sits in Peter’s chair.

That said, we do have certain concepts such as “first amongst equals.” This is a title of honor ONLY, and it refers to the Bishop who chairs meetings. He is the Bishop who may claim the honor of celebrating during a service. He has absolutely no authority over any other reigning Bishop.

It is to Peter, that is to say, to his successor (pros Petron etoi ton autou diadochon) to whom one must submit all heretical novelties introduced into the universal Church by those who distance themselves from the truth.

Ironically, St. Theodore’s view is on this matter is a good example of those heretical novelties. It is a major heresy to hold that any one man has the power to declare what is heretical and what is not. Even saints can be mistaken at times!

We hope you understand it better now. We hope you can see why Likoudis is wrong now.

6 Florence 1437 January 19, 2015 at 12:34 am

Hello 1389!

I found your article on Likoudis a bit harsh (probably I can see why
some Likoudis friends are upset), but then the matter is serious, and
since I agree that Likoudis’ case is very weak and wrong on many
points, some of which you have also mentioned, it is not unjustified,
no matter how ‘harsh’ these words may seem to others (but also, Papism
cannot be described as the best school of good morals in history, not
to speak of good Christianity, so I dare take it as heartening that some
Catholics seem to have better taste today, even when they complain of
such minor things on your blog)

I was curious to see what a convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism
looks like, since youtube presented one, and here he was… It also
struck me, from his dissertation on the greatness of Papism, that the
Christian books he read seems to have been Papist literature, and I
just need to point out that probably if one reads Muslim literature
only, that might make one a faithful servant of Allah, not even a
Christian. No wonder a guy who read Papist oriented works becomes a
Catholic. The question whether he ever knew much of Orthodoxy is
therefore quite legitimate.

His arguments are quite weak too, he speaks of the Orthodox as being
weak and powerless without the Pope, ones who cannot even have a
council and agree on anything anymore, since they separated from, in
his view, ‘the source of unity of Christianity’. Without entering into
other implications, nor how erroenous this view is, I only point out
here, as a matter of fact, that the Orthodox everywhere having
rejected the Pope with almost one voice (there were of course
betrayers in all times) and all breaking communion with the fallen
Pope is in itself an act that contradicts his description of disorder
and powerlessness. The Church was never powerless, although the
powerfull of the world seemed to have vanquished it many times, or
attempted to (see the times of persecution, in the first three
centuries, or in Communist Russia, etc), and Her only Head, the Head
of the Body of Christ, is Jesus Christ, Who left no vicar behind,
because He never left, ruling His Church from quite close, even if we
do not see Him as the historical Jesus too often, nor too many of
us. And this was the one point all bishops who knew history undestood
really well, and this united them in rejecting the few false claims
the political Pope started to make in those fateful years.

But let us not forget that the West of the time, of the first
millenium, was a barbarous West compared to the Hellenic culture of
the East, a West mostly uneducated on the average, and therefore it
fell prey quite easily to the false pretences of the lying Pope, who
inflated his status in the eyes of the Western Christians without
successful Western resistance, but was met with justified and
unanimous shock by his Eastern colleagues. This truth may be hard to
swallow by a Catholic, who has been indoctrinated, like his ancestors,
in the papal way of distorting things, but looking deep enough into
history could possibly cure the evil. The truth is that Christianity
is beyond beautiful, and is the only religion one could adhere to, but
true Christianity, that one which did not undergo radical changes of
dogma, like the papality, the vision of sin, salvation, purgatory,
“immaculate conception”, “assumption”, the “holy office of the
inquisition”, the association of the Catholics with fascism in WWII
(speaking of the power for good of having “one head/vicar” on
earth…) and other things…

So, as one pill of cure for our Catholic lovers of truth who feel
confused when reading this article, I would suggest just one thing, a
46 min video on youtube, “Basil the Great, the Lion of Christ”, in
which one learns from a letter of an Eastern monk around year 400
about the problems of the time, of the arian heresy and of the main
Christians the people were looking up to. Search that on youtube,
watch it and consider the role of the Pope in it (he comes into
discussion into exactly one place, but he is viewed as a person of
little consequence, of whose infallibility people werequite unaware
(and he is identified as the “Bishop of Rome”)). After pondering on
this, consider reading some true Christian literature, from the
pre-schism era, of the most faithful and also worldly-educated
lumminaries of the Church, the Holy Three Hierarchs and other similar
Christian saints of the East, and you will see the 2nd millenium
picture of papacy pictured by the Vatican chief for what it really is,
a big lie…

7 Stefano September 30, 2015 at 10:17 pm

Hi,
The Church Fathers were very harsh in dealing with heretics. They said some particularly mean things about Arius, Nestorius, Apponarius etc so a few well deserved harsh comments are well in keeping with Orthodox Tradition. Even Jesus told it straight to those who deserved it. James Likoudis is one who deserves some responses like this. His webpage is full of triumphalism.

I found your comment on how Orthodox converts to Roman Catholicism have dried up since the political influence of the Papacy has declined to be very valid. Without the Polish government pressuring the Ukrainians, or Austria/Hungary pressuring the Romanians or the French the Antiochians the argument on the papacy seems much less convincing.
I’ve read a fair bit of James Likoudis’ writings, even buying his ‘Ending the Byzantine Schism’. Interestingly the translation of the apology from Demetrius Kydones, a Byzantine convert to Roman Catholicism in the 14th century is from German rather than Greek. One thing that did strike me was his ignorance. He seems to think that the 4th or 6th or even the 9th century papacy is pretty much the same as the 20th or 21st century papacy. When he quotes authors on the papacy he jumps on this presupposition to show that Orthodox once believed in the papacy and then broke away. No wonder he has no standing in Roman Catholic academic circles and no reputable publisher will publish his works.
I thought that this article was fair. A very systematic response. Thank you.

8 Timothy Jordan October 21, 2016 at 4:25 pm

The Comments on Coming Home have been disabled. I will find another forum to defend the Catholic doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son on purely Biblical grounds. My comments were intemperate I admit. My Biblical arguments were sound.

9 Arthur Granville December 6, 2016 at 3:44 am

This is one of the most hate-filled polemic I have ever read. Whoever the writer is, he has a BIG problem with his Catholic faith. How can someone call themselves a Catholic and go after a very decent, knowledgeable, and kind man like Mr. likoudis? I don’t know exactly what his gripe is with Mr. Likoudis, but I, for one, would never want to be friends with this writer. He has literally gone off the deep end. His lack of Christian charity lacks irenic tones to it and I would suspect he has a great struggle with his faith. Next witness.

10 1389 December 19, 2016 at 11:54 am

Both blog admins are Eastern Orthodox Christians, not Roman Catholics. We consider Roman Catholicism to be heretical. We are not having a struggle with our faith. We do hate the sin of dishonesty, which Mr. Likoudis commits.

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: