Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
31
I wonder why Charlie (#Jesuischarliecharlie ?) went mainstream and Zozo didn't http://www.creepypasta.com/zozo-phenomenon/

Personally I blame BOYCE and BOICE http://www.demonbuster.com/boyce.html

Infernal politics can be so unfair.
32
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Laity confirms the council??
« Last post by Wandile on Today at 03:34:19 AM »
Quote
"What makes a Council binding on all? The fact that it has been accepted by all. Well, what if it has not been accepted by some? Oh, they're all schismatics, so they don't count. But, since the Council has not been accepted by some, how can it be Ecumenical? It's accepted by all, because those who don't accept the decision are cut off. But, since it has not been accepted, how can it be binding? It has been accepted by all ..."

That dilemma holds for the RCC as well, though. How can Vatican I be binding when the Old Catholics refuse to accept it? How can Vatican II be binding when sedevacantists refuse to accept it and conclavists have gone so far as to elect their own Pope over it?

A problem for everybody is a problem for nobody.

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.

But to answer : This does not diminish the ecumenical status of the council as the council was ratified as the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Bishop. Thus it is binding on all, even those who don't adhere. Just as law is binding on all , even on criminals who refuse to obey.

Alright. I'll start a new thread. http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,64958.new.html#new

Thank you, much appreciated:)
33
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Laity confirms the council??
« Last post by Wandile on Today at 03:33:23 AM »
Hi Volnutt. Well, it depends on whose criterion you accept. Cyrillic, summarizing the Orthodox view said, "There are only two theories of how an ecumenical council is recognized that hold up to scrutiny. The first is that true ecumenical councils are recognized by the sensus fidelium, often in retrospect.", and under this theory, and if this is the case, the dissent of a few among the faithful does seem to pose a difficulty in that it can always be claimed the sense of the faithful and the conscience of the Church has not truly accepted this particular disputed Council.

But to us Catholics, as I said above, "The only strictly necessary criterion on account of which a Council is known and seen by all to be ecumenical or universally binding is its approval by the Apostolic See, owing to whose universal jurisdiction, the Council is binding on the whole Church." And by this rule and standard, the dissent of the Old Catholics or of sedevacantists poses no particular problem, since all can know and see that these particular Councils were convoked and approved by the authority of the Apostolic See, that is by the Roman Pontiff; as well as even the body of the bishops in communion with him, and is therefore clearly binding on the whole Church. It comes down to what criteria we accept for a Council being Ecumenical.

Yes, but how do you how that the Pope has acted rightly and not fallen into heresy? How do you know that today's Pope will not turn out to have been an antipope all along?

Why do you follow this guy:



And not this guy:



Oh wow because one was elected legitimately by a conclave that appointed Pope Benedict XVI's successor upon his resignation. This appointment was accepted by the cardinal electors. That's how we know Pope Francis is legitimate and not an antipope.

Yes, but you're just taking it on faith that the cardinal electors were not heretics or that Francis did not subsequently become one, as various sedevacantists and conclavists claim. You take it on faith that the Palmarians are wrong in their claim that God has moved the Papacy to Spain, etc. etc.

On faith? We all witnessed the conclave and the cardinals of the church (all in good standing with the church) elect Pope Francis. It is not a matter of faith but matter of fact from the observance of the following of the electoral process. The men who elected the Pope were in good standing with the church, none have been declared formal heretics and are still members of the church. The Pope himself is not a formal heretic either. He has to obstinately (refuse correction and continue in your ways) espouse formal heresy for him to lose his office.

Quote
My point is that Orthodox conciliarity is not the big mess that Xavier characterizes it as, or if it is, then it's not any more messy than Papal Supremacy. Poking holes in other people's ecclesiologies does no good unless one can show that a better solution to said holes is out there.

Its a lot messier. Its not even decided upon in EO. There are many theories about how it works in EOy.

But again then CC has no part in this discussion
34
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Laity confirms the council??
« Last post by Volnutt on Today at 03:29:39 AM »
Quote
"What makes a Council binding on all? The fact that it has been accepted by all. Well, what if it has not been accepted by some? Oh, they're all schismatics, so they don't count. But, since the Council has not been accepted by some, how can it be Ecumenical? It's accepted by all, because those who don't accept the decision are cut off. But, since it has not been accepted, how can it be binding? It has been accepted by all ..."

That dilemma holds for the RCC as well, though. How can Vatican I be binding when the Old Catholics refuse to accept it? How can Vatican II be binding when sedevacantists refuse to accept it and conclavists have gone so far as to elect their own Pope over it?

A problem for everybody is a problem for nobody.

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.

But to answer : This does not diminish the ecumenical status of the council as the council was ratified as the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Bishop. Thus it is binding on all, even those who don't adhere. Just as law is binding on all , even on criminals who refuse to obey.

Alright. I'll start a new thread. http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,64958.new.html#new
35
Ok, since you don't want this in that other thread, I'll make the point here.

It doesn't matter if the Orthodox have no good way to determine whether a council is Ecumenical because the Catholic way is no better given the existence of dissenters to Papal pronouncements such as the Old Catholics and various sedevacantists.

Quote
"What makes a Council binding on all? The fact that it has been accepted by all. Well, what if it has not been accepted by some? Oh, they're all schismatics, so they don't count. But, since the Council has not been accepted by some, how can it be Ecumenical? It's accepted by all, because those who don't accept the decision are cut off. But, since it has not been accepted, how can it be binding? It has been accepted by all ..."

That dilemma holds for the RCC as well, though. How can Vatican I be binding when the Old Catholics refuse to accept it? How can Vatican II be binding when sedevacantists refuse to accept it and conclavists have gone so far as to elect their own Pope over it?

A problem for everybody is a problem for nobody.

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.

But to answer : This does not diminish the ecumenical status of the council as the council was ratified as the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Bishop. Thus it is binding on all, even those who don't adhere. Just as law is binding on all , even on criminals who refuse to obey.

Not if the law is unconstitutional it isn't. Not if said legislature is composed of spies from an enemy nation.


I repeat:  Poking holes in other people's ecclesiologies does no good unless one can show that a better solution to said holes is out there.
36
Faith Issues / Re: Why am I poor?
« Last post by mikeforjesus on Today at 03:20:57 AM »
Thanks vamrat but I thought God told me He needs people to fulfill their wordly roles in the form of a career I am okay not to follow a career if I can judge those who do follow a career as not going to hell and if the world does not need more people to follow a career
37
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Laity confirms the council??
« Last post by Volnutt on Today at 03:20:40 AM »
Hi Volnutt. Well, it depends on whose criterion you accept. Cyrillic, summarizing the Orthodox view said, "There are only two theories of how an ecumenical council is recognized that hold up to scrutiny. The first is that true ecumenical councils are recognized by the sensus fidelium, often in retrospect.", and under this theory, and if this is the case, the dissent of a few among the faithful does seem to pose a difficulty in that it can always be claimed the sense of the faithful and the conscience of the Church has not truly accepted this particular disputed Council.

But to us Catholics, as I said above, "The only strictly necessary criterion on account of which a Council is known and seen by all to be ecumenical or universally binding is its approval by the Apostolic See, owing to whose universal jurisdiction, the Council is binding on the whole Church." And by this rule and standard, the dissent of the Old Catholics or of sedevacantists poses no particular problem, since all can know and see that these particular Councils were convoked and approved by the authority of the Apostolic See, that is by the Roman Pontiff; as well as even the body of the bishops in communion with him, and is therefore clearly binding on the whole Church. It comes down to what criteria we accept for a Council being Ecumenical.

Yes, but how do you how that the Pope has acted rightly and not fallen into heresy? How do you know that today's Pope will not turn out to have been an antipope all along?

Why do you follow this guy:



And not this guy:



Oh wow because one was elected legitimately by a conclave that appointed Pope Benedict XVI's successor upon his resignation. This appointment was accepted by the cardinal electors. That's how we know Pope Francis is legitimate and not an antipope.

Yes, but you're just taking it on faith that the cardinal electors were not heretics or that Francis did not subsequently become one, as various sedevacantists and conclavists claim. You take it on faith that the Palmarians are wrong in their claim that God has moved the Papacy to Spain, etc. etc.

My point is that Orthodox conciliarity is not the big mess that Xavier characterizes it as, or if it is, then it's not any more messy than Papal Supremacy. Poking holes in other people's ecclesiologies does no good unless one can show that a better solution to said holes is out there.
38
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Laity confirms the council??
« Last post by hecma925 on Today at 03:19:08 AM »

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.


Then why post the thread in the Orhtodox-Catholic Discussion sub-forum?
39
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Laity confirms the council??
« Last post by Wandile on Today at 03:14:13 AM »
Quote
"What makes a Council binding on all? The fact that it has been accepted by all. Well, what if it has not been accepted by some? Oh, they're all schismatics, so they don't count. But, since the Council has not been accepted by some, how can it be Ecumenical? It's accepted by all, because those who don't accept the decision are cut off. But, since it has not been accepted, how can it be binding? It has been accepted by all ..."

That dilemma holds for the RCC as well, though. How can Vatican I be binding when the Old Catholics refuse to accept it? How can Vatican II be binding when sedevacantists refuse to accept it and conclavists have gone so far as to elect their own Pope over it?

A problem for everybody is a problem for nobody.

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.

But to answer : This does not diminish the ecumenical status of the council as the council was ratified as the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Bishop. Thus it is binding on all, even those who don't adhere. Just as law is binding on all , even on criminals who refuse to obey.
40
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Laity confirms the council??
« Last post by Wandile on Today at 03:05:38 AM »
Hi Volnutt. Well, it depends on whose criterion you accept. Cyrillic, summarizing the Orthodox view said, "There are only two theories of how an ecumenical council is recognized that hold up to scrutiny. The first is that true ecumenical councils are recognized by the sensus fidelium, often in retrospect.", and under this theory, and if this is the case, the dissent of a few among the faithful does seem to pose a difficulty in that it can always be claimed the sense of the faithful and the conscience of the Church has not truly accepted this particular disputed Council.

But to us Catholics, as I said above, "The only strictly necessary criterion on account of which a Council is known and seen by all to be ecumenical or universally binding is its approval by the Apostolic See, owing to whose universal jurisdiction, the Council is binding on the whole Church." And by this rule and standard, the dissent of the Old Catholics or of sedevacantists poses no particular problem, since all can know and see that these particular Councils were convoked and approved by the authority of the Apostolic See, that is by the Roman Pontiff; as well as even the body of the bishops in communion with him, and is therefore clearly binding on the whole Church. It comes down to what criteria we accept for a Council being Ecumenical.

Yes, but how do you how that the Pope has acted rightly and not fallen into heresy? How do you know that today's Pope will not turn out to have been an antipope all along?

Why do you follow this guy:



And not this guy:



Oh wow because one was elected legitimately by a conclave that appointed Pope Benedict XVI's successor upon his resignation. This appointment was accepted by the cardinal electors. That's how we know Pope Francis is legitimate and not an antipope.

But please both Xavier and Volnutt. The CC is not part of discussion here please tread lightly to keep within the rules. We can speak of historical facts and people like Popes and Patriarchs in the first millenium but do not link any back to the CC... Speak of the issues of the first millenium in isolation
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »