OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 04:56:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: And the pseudo-Orhtodox yelled!  (Read 1010 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
VladCatholic
Moderated
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


OC.net


« on: December 13, 2003, 01:46:06 PM »

The so-called Orthodox claim that their is the true communion, but is this so?

  Now, I am of the Church that Christ founded, The Most Holy Roman Catholic Church (Matt. 16:18).

  Christ founded One true Church outside of which there is no hope for eternal salvation (Matt. 18:17).

  In sight of this, the pope, is the head of the Church and must hold and protect the true faith as its shepard. Now, if the pope would fall into heresy he would at once cease to be head of the Church for he that is head is also a member.

  St. Paul preaches:

      “But though we, or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

(Galatians 1:8-9).


  It is clear then that even if one representing Christ should wither away into a "new: gospel that he would be "anathema."

  God "cannot" contradict Himself, that is why the Church teaches that if a pope falls into heresy he cannot be pope.

  Pope Innocent III as quoted by the theologian Billot in his Tract. de Ecclesia Christi, p. 610:

“The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for sins I might commit in matters of faith.”

 
  An heretical pope is no pope. And, if a man where a heretic he would not be pope even if elected with the whole consent of the Church.

 
  Heretics and Schismatics are not members of the Church of Christ.

 St. Optatus of Milevis:

  "The Catholic Church alone, then, Christ calls His Spouse. The Church, therefore, is one; this cannot be said amongst any of those who are heretics or schismatics. The churches of every one of the heretics is prostituted; they are churches which Christ repudiates as unnecessary, since He is the Spouse of One Church."

  ("Schism of the Donatists," Bk.I, no's.6, 10; LAF vol. II; PL 11; CSL vol.XXVI, Vienna: 1893; FOC p.158).



  The author of this is not a Sedevacantist but simply a Roman Catholic.

  Those that "communicate" in the sacraments of heretics or schismatics are not true Catholics.

  For example:

          The Society of Pius X (which believe that John Paul II is pope) will allow communion with those that believe that John Paul II is not pope.

  This is heresy.

  There can be no communion with heretics.

  St. John of Damascus writes:

"With all our strength let us beware lest we receive Communion from or give it to heretics. 'Give not what is holy to the dogs,' says the Lord. 'Neither cast ye your pearls before swine', lest we become partakers in their dishonour and condemnation."

 (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV, 13).


  Now, anti-Pope Paul VI and and pseudo-Patriarch Ahtenagoras were responsible for the so-called "lifting" of the "anathemas" of 1054 A.D. which separated both.

  Their "joint" statement was as follows:

   "They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion." (Dec. 7, 1965).


  Clearly then these two heretics "recognize" each other's "communion." If so, then in the Greek side of things they must "except" what the Church of Rome teaches.

  I am in no way supporting what these heretics have done and it is absolutely "invalid."

  But it does prove a point: both "recognize" each other and according to them (who "suppossedly" represent their communions) lifted the excommunications off each other.

  Now, where was the so-called Orhtodox in all this. Do they still regard Athenagoras as a "true" Patriarch "yes." Do they recognize him as "orthodox" --"yes."

  So then they communicate with a heretic in prayers and intercessions etc.

  And also, how could the so-called Orhtodox be "orhtodox" since they "recoginze" as valid the sacraments and faith of the Roman Church in that statement qouted above?

  Communion means to be in harmony in faith and practice.

  Now, the main stream so-called Orhtodox follow in the steps of Athenagoras etc.

  If so, then how could they state that the Roman Church is in heresy? The purpose of "excommunication" is to acknowledge that one is "not" in communion with a heretic or schismatic.

  What is there to "disagree" about if "excommunication" is "lifted?"

  I think the point is utterly clear.

  Now, the Old Calenarists (Julian) believe that the "new" Calendarists (those that adopted the Calendar change of Pope Gregory XIII in 1583) are regard as heretics in the eyes of the Old.

  But, and suprisingly "some" of the Old Calendarists will hold communion with the New.

  Two points are now made: 1. If the so-called Orthodox follow the lead of pseudo-Patriarch Athenagoras then they follow from they consider as heresy: Roman Catholicism.

  2. If they follow the lead of the Old then they still communicate with the New and where or what position does that leave them in?

 

  Only the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ and as St. John the Almsgiver stated that even if we be surrounded by heretics not to communicate with them even if they state they are of the true faith but deny or doubt one dogma of the true faith of Christ and His Apostles. One must stay home and pray and not communicate with heretics in the sacraments.

  With this I remain,

  VladCatholic


Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2003, 01:56:57 PM »

The Orthodox are not the only ones yelling.  As a Roman Catholic in full communion with the Holy See I am yelling as well. Who are you in communion with?  

[One must stay home and pray and not communicate with heretics in the sacraments.]

What??? Shocked

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2003, 02:10:19 PM »

 Now, anti-Pope Paul VI and and pseudo-Patriarch Ahtenagoras were responsible for the so-called "lifting" of the "anathemas" of 1054 A.D. which separated both.

You are very mistaken if you consider the anathemas of 1054 to be the substantial obstacle to the reconciliation of RC's and Orthodox. These obstacles are doctrinal rather than historical. The anathema laid by Humbert was precipitate and that issued in return was rather against Humbert than against everyone in communion with Rome.

The removal of these anathemas was merely a gesture to allow for the possibility of a genuine dialogue to see if an honest and theological reconciliation could take place preserving the integrity of the faith from false compromise.

Even if Humbert hadn't been around in 1054 the Romans and Orthodox were already practically out of communion, there were already too many novelties in the Roman doctrinal catalogue.

In a similar manner I do not speak ill of Pope Leo of Rome and I try to understand and present Chalcedon and the Tome in as good a light as is possible so that I can engage in a dialogue, this doesn't necessitate a change in my faith but it is the necessary precondition for dialogue. The excommunications of 1054 were symboc, their lifting was also symbolic. That's all. There isn't suddenly a restoration of communion or even an acceptance that the RC's have the same doctrinal substance.

Likewise you make altogether too much of the calendar. Since the Roman communion has introduced many such novelties, and I use that in the sense of something new, by papal fiat I wonder that you fail to comprehend that people can disagree about the calendar and yet not consider it of the very substance of the faith. In my own Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate we use the Revised Gregorian Calendar for fixed feasts and the rest of the Patriarchate use the Julian for fixed feast and we all use the Julian for the Paschal cycle. There is no necessary conflict in faith.

Subdeacon Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.058 seconds with 31 queries.