OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 01, 2014, 08:02:00 AM *
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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?  (Read 23113 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #225 on: September 08, 2010, 04:50:51 AM »


I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Contrary to the odd Roman Catholic belief that the keys are something given to the Prime Minister of Israel, the keys are in fact the powers of binding and loosing given to all the Apostles and I believe that is recorded in the 18th chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel.

The bishops take their power through Peter's successor.

Rank heresy of course, but it is good that you have brought the belief out into the open.

Quote
You can fuss and wiggle and snark all you like but the Petrine Office is of divine origin

Again heresy in the eyes of the Church.

Quote
, and for the first time in a long time you fellows have managed to make me quite contented to be an integral part of it.

You are writing as if this is the first time you have encountered the Orthodox rejection of the papacy?

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no
doubt: this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Saint Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #226 on: September 08, 2010, 10:45:05 AM »


I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Contrary to the odd Roman Catholic belief that the keys are something given to the Prime Minister of Israel, the keys are in fact the powers of binding and loosing given to all the Apostles and I believe that is recorded in the 18th chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel.

The bishops take their power through Peter's successor. 

Really? A shame you couldn't tell the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council.  They not only accepted Patriarch St. Meletius of Antioch, whom Rome rejected (after sending his whinny letter to Rome, St. Jerome accepted ordination from St. Meletius' rival supported by Rome), they had him open the Council, and, in further opposition to Rome, rejected Rome's candidate for succession to St. Peter's first throne at Antioch and chose St. Flavius, over Rome's repeated objection.  New Rome remained in schism from Old Rome until St. John Chrysostom, who had accepted ordination from St. Meletius (as did St. Basil and St. Gregory, St. Meletios installing St. Gregory as bishop of Constantinople), and extoled St. Meletius.

Quote
The keys are a symbol of authority and the power to bind and loose is intimately tied to that authority.

You can fuss and wiggle and snark all you like but the Petrine Office is of divine origin, and will remain as long as the Church remains,

Really? You mean the Vatican? All four of the patriarchs that the Vatican has installed in Antioch claim St. Meletius in their episcopal lineage, not Paulinus, Rome's man (whose episcopal line died out).

The episcopacy is of divine origin, and continues, including in St. Peter's original see (the one whose throne the Vatican celebrates).


Quote
and for the first time in a long time you fellows have managed to make me quite contented to be an integral part of it.
Knock yourself out.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,890



« Reply #227 on: September 08, 2010, 11:33:19 AM »

Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

Having read Iconodule's reservations about my use of "mere dogma," I must insist that a dogma that was proclaimed in 1870 (far outside the Apostolic Age, the early Church Fathers, and even our common era), a dogma that is based on the gross heresy of a super-bishop, a dogma that was proclaimed unilaterally by--at best--one of the many Orthodox Christian Churches, such a dogma is not to be equated with the dogmas of the Incarnation, with Scripture or with Holy Tradition.

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #228 on: September 08, 2010, 11:48:34 AM »

Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

Having read Iconodule's reservations about my use of "mere dogma," I must insist that a dogma that was proclaimed in 1870 (far outside the Apostolic Age, the early Church Fathers, and even our common era), a dogma that is based on the gross heresy of a super-bishop, a dogma that was proclaimed unilaterally by--at best--one of the many Orthodox Christian Churches, such a dogma is not to be equated with the dogmas of the Incarnation, with Scripture or with Holy Tradition.

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.
They are so important to us because they are true.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,890



« Reply #229 on: September 08, 2010, 11:57:19 AM »

Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

Having read Iconodule's reservations about my use of "mere dogma," I must insist that a dogma that was proclaimed in 1870 (far outside the Apostolic Age, the early Church Fathers, and even our common era), a dogma that is based on the gross heresy of a super-bishop, a dogma that was proclaimed unilaterally by--at best--one of the many Orthodox Christian Churches, such a dogma is not to be equated with the dogmas of the Incarnation, with Scripture or with Holy Tradition.

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.
They are so important to us because they are true.

I do not doubt you. But, my question remains: Even if you believe that they are true, are they important enough for you to sacrifice the unity of the Body of Christ?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 11:57:44 AM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #230 on: September 08, 2010, 12:16:11 PM »

Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

Having read Iconodule's reservations about my use of "mere dogma," I must insist that a dogma that was proclaimed in 1870 (far outside the Apostolic Age, the early Church Fathers, and even our common era), a dogma that is based on the gross heresy of a super-bishop, a dogma that was proclaimed unilaterally by--at best--one of the many Orthodox Christian Churches, such a dogma is not to be equated with the dogmas of the Incarnation, with Scripture or with Holy Tradition.

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.
They are so important to us because they are true.

I do not doubt you. But, my question remains: Even if you believe that they are true, are they important enough for you to sacrifice the unity of the Body of Christ?
Interesting question. Some might argue that perhaps the Church may have been imprudent in defining these dogmas because, even though they are true, the act of defining them  drove a larger wedge between the Catholic Church and other Apostolic Churches, (EO, OO, and ACE). I cannot comment on that because I know that I do not possess the wisdom that the Catholic Church possess.
What I do know is that Church has now defined them and there is no going back. Since they are true and have been defined we cannot throw them out.
Would your Church be willing to throw out it's teaching on any particular dogma for the sake of unity? I don't think so and that is one of the reasons that I respect the EOC. Orthodox Christians, like Catholic Christians, want unity to be a true unity of faith with no compromise. Because I believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ established the Papacy, I cannot ignore this truth for the sake of unity. I believe that to do so would be to betray Our Lord. Likewise, you believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ did not establish the Papacy.
And so we find ourselves where we are. Unfortunately out of communion, but still brothers in Christ.
At the very least, we can rejoice in what we share in common. We both worship the Holy Trinity, and honor the Incarnation of Our Lord. We both venerate, and pray to the Saints, claiming the Blessed Virgin Mary as our common mother. We both believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and in the efficacy of the sacraments. We both love Holy Tradition and the Teachings of the Fathers of the Church. We both have great saints that have shown us the way to true union with our God and Father. We both believe that the Divine Holy Spirit dwells in the souls of the faithful. Although we may not acheive unity this side of Heaven, there is much to celebrate.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #231 on: September 08, 2010, 12:53:47 PM »


/\  All the above from Papist... I am sitting here applauding!
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #232 on: September 08, 2010, 01:29:22 PM »


/\  All the above from Papist... I am sitting here applauding!

Shocked
 Grin

Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #233 on: September 08, 2010, 02:02:36 PM »

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us. 

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.

Mary
Logged

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,890



« Reply #234 on: September 08, 2010, 02:14:06 PM »

Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

Having read Iconodule's reservations about my use of "mere dogma," I must insist that a dogma that was proclaimed in 1870 (far outside the Apostolic Age, the early Church Fathers, and even our common era), a dogma that is based on the gross heresy of a super-bishop, a dogma that was proclaimed unilaterally by--at best--one of the many Orthodox Christian Churches, such a dogma is not to be equated with the dogmas of the Incarnation, with Scripture or with Holy Tradition.

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.
They are so important to us because they are true.

I do not doubt you. But, my question remains: Even if you believe that they are true, are they important enough for you to sacrifice the unity of the Body of Christ?
Interesting question. Some might argue that perhaps the Church may have been imprudent in defining these dogmas because, even though they are true, the act of defining them  drove a larger wedge between the Catholic Church and other Apostolic Churches, (EO, OO, and ACE). I cannot comment on that because I know that I do not possess the wisdom that the Catholic Church possess.
What I do know is that Church has now defined them and there is no going back. Since they are true and have been defined we cannot throw them out.
Would your Church be willing to throw out it's teaching on any particular dogma for the sake of unity? I don't think so and that is one of the reasons that I respect the EOC. Orthodox Christians, like Catholic Christians, want unity to be a true unity of faith with no compromise. Because I believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ established the Papacy, I cannot ignore this truth for the sake of unity. I believe that to do so would be to betray Our Lord. Likewise, you believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ did not establish the Papacy.
And so we find ourselves where we are. Unfortunately out of communion, but still brothers in Christ.
At the very least, we can rejoice in what we share in common. We both worship the Holy Trinity, and honor the Incarnation of Our Lord. We both venerate, and pray to the Saints, claiming the Blessed Virgin Mary as our common mother. We both believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and in the efficacy of the sacraments. We both love Holy Tradition and the Teachings of the Fathers of the Church. We both have great saints that have shown us the way to true union with our God and Father. We both believe that the Divine Holy Spirit dwells in the souls of the faithful. Although we may not acheive unity this side of Heaven, there is much to celebrate.

I of course applaud your honesty and strongly held beliefs. I certainly agree with you that Orthodox churches would not throw out a dogma simply for the sake of unity. However, there is a fundamental difference here: whereas we the Orthodox are preserving the dogmas of the whole, undivided Church, you are holding on to the dogmas that you only have added. If we threw out a dogma, in other words, it would also be your dogma.

As for your belief that the Lord Himself established the Papacy, I think that the time line is a bit off, don't you think? Show me anything in the Bible,  the Ecumenical Councils (accepted by the entire Church), indeed non-Roman sources during the first millennium that establish anything more than the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as first among equals. Show me any Scriptural basis for elevating a bishop so that he ontologically becomes another kind of bishop, a super-bishop as the Catholic Church has in fact defined the Bishop of Rome.

You know that there were doctrines of the Church that later were rejected, even though a huge majority of clergy and lat persons once followed the once-doctrine-but-now-heresy teachings. As a catholic (encompassing the whole Church) example, the teachings of Arius come to mind. In the East, the rejection of the false Union of the Council of Florence comes to mind. Look, it is indeed possible that y'all are wrong, isn't it so? In the case of the Orthodox Church, since we are still adhering to the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, we really cannot say that there was an error because (a) we look at the dogmatic pronouncements (as opposed to the canons) as being fences around the Holy Mysteries (defined not merely as the Sacraments but the ineffable truth about the Triune God) and (b) because we would not wish to be presumptuous as doing so would also impact you, as well as your derivatives.  
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 02:22:57 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,890



« Reply #235 on: September 08, 2010, 02:19:03 PM »

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us.  

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.

Mary

You shock me dear Mary; you are already in schism with us. Yet, you believe that we are the schismatics? May be what I just wrote is too strong: you say that we would be (in the future) in full and formal schism. Does that mean that we are not now in such a state, that we are in a less than full and formal schism--like being a little pregnant?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 02:19:59 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,482


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #236 on: September 08, 2010, 02:32:50 PM »

I am familiar with English translations of that particular homily.  Would you mind extracting the text and putting it together with your earlier explanation so that we can see that they are identical, please.

Mary




Why should he do that when you refused to do the exact same thing when I asked you nicely regarding what translation of the Menaion you used?

Pot, meet kettle.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #237 on: September 08, 2010, 03:21:13 PM »

I of course applaud your honesty and strongly held beliefs. I certainly agree with you that Orthodox churches would not throw out a dogma simply for the sake of unity. However, there is a fundamental difference here: whereas we the Orthodox are preserving the dogmas of the whole, undivided Church, you are holding on to the dogmas that you only have added. If we threw out a dogma, in other words, it would also be your dogma.
Well, the fact of the matter is that I don't accept your premise that the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved the entirety of the Apostolic Faith nor your premise that the Catholic Church has corrupted it.
As for your belief that the Lord Himself established the Papacy, I think that the time line is a bit off, don't you think? Show me anything in the Bible,  the Ecumenical Councils (accepted by the entire Church), indeed non-Roman sources during the first millennium that establish anything more than the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as first among equals. Show me any Scriptural basis for elevating a bishop so that he ontologically becomes another kind of bishop, a super-bishop as the Catholic Church has in fact defined the Bishop of Rome.
First, I don't believe that the Pope is some kind of "Super Bishop". The Sacrament of Holy Orders bestowed on the Pope is no different from the Sacrament of Holy Orders received by any other bishop. However, as the Bishop of Rome and the Final successor of St. Peter (and I think perhaps the successor of St. Paul as well) he is the first among equals and, as such, is charged with specific responsibilities and is granted certain charisms and authorities to meet these responsibilities.
Second, I am convinced by the Scriptures, Tradition, and History, that the Papacy is a divinely established institution. However, I don't think that debating that is issue is what this thread is about. There are multiple threads covering this topic but if you would like to look further into it, there is an interesting debate on the matter between an EO and a Catholic here: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/primacy/
You know that there were doctrines of the Church that later were rejected, even though a huge majority of clergy and lat persons once followed the once-doctrine-but-now-heresy teachings. As a catholic (encompassing the whole Church) example, the teachings of Arius come to mind. In the East, the rejection of the false Union of the Council of Florence comes to mind. Look, it is indeed possible that y'all are wrong, isn't it so? In the case of the Orthodox Church, since we are still adhering to the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, we really cannot say that there was an error because (a) we look at the dogmatic pronouncements (as opposed to the canons) as being fences around the Holy Mysteries (defined not merely as the Sacraments but the ineffable truth about the Triune God) and (b) because we would not wish to be presumptuous as doing so would also impact you, as well as your derivatives.  
And, again, I don't agree with your premise. I believe that there are certain Apostolic teachings from which the EO Church has deviated, especially in the last few centuries.
I am not looking to make this  a "Let's debate which Church is the True Church" thread. We have plenty of those. What I am trying to express to you here is that the reason why Catholics like myself don't believe that we should dump certain doctrines for the sake of unity, is that we are intellectually convinced that these doctrines are Apostolic and, thus, non-negotiables.
Thank you for the continued charitable conversation. I have always found your posts to be fair and honest.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #238 on: September 08, 2010, 03:25:38 PM »



You shock me dear Mary; you are already in schism with us. Yet, you believe that we are the schismatics? May be what I just wrote is too strong: you say that we would be (in the future) in full and formal schism. Does that mean that we are not now in such a state, that we are in a less than full and formal schism--like being a little pregnant?
What's with all this either/or linear thinking? Aren't the EO's more willing to accept paradoxical mysteries and to avoid tying down certain things with dogmatic exactitude? I believe that the EO's and Protestants have a special relationship to Christ's Church in that, all though they are not full members, they retain a partial-communion with the Church through which EO's maintain Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments, and Protestants maintain a valid baptism. Of course, the EO Church is much closer in commuinion than the protestants are but there is some partial communion anyway. Of course, I don't think that this means that the EO Church is in full communion nor are her members members of the Catholic Church. But we still have a special relationship with you as our closest brothers and sisters in Christ outside the visible bounds of the Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #239 on: September 08, 2010, 03:30:25 PM »

I am familiar with English translations of that particular homily.  Would you mind extracting the text and putting it together with your earlier explanation so that we can see that they are identical, please.

Mary




Why should he do that when you refused to do the exact same thing when I asked you nicely regarding what translation of the Menaion you used?

Pot, meet kettle.

Not too long ago you gleefully rubbed my nose in "Two wrongs don't make a right."....I suppose that is all relative too...eh?

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #240 on: September 08, 2010, 03:30:26 PM »

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us.  

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.

Mary

You shock me dear Mary; you are already in schism with us. Yet, you believe that we are the schismatics? May be what I just wrote is too strong: you say that we would be (in the future) in full and formal schism. Does that mean that we are not now in such a state, that we are in a less than full and formal schism--like being a little pregnant?

The Catholic Church teaches that Orthodoxy has Apostolic Succession and is not in formal schism but is in material schism with the Catholic Church.   I am a Catholic.  I am sorry that is so shocking to you.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #241 on: September 08, 2010, 03:33:03 PM »

Second Chance,
I am trying to help you understand, that if I was really convinced that dogma concerning the Papacy was an innovation, and that Christ did not establish the Papacy, I would convert to one of the other Apostolic Churches (probably OO). But as it is, I am not convinced of the statement above. I am convinced of the opposite, and that is why I am Catholic and not EO or OO.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #242 on: September 08, 2010, 08:43:36 PM »


/\  All the above from Papist... I am sitting here applauding!

So the two Churches will remain divided with many questions unresolved? Papist and Mary and other RC's on one side and Father Ambrose and other Orthodox on the other side, with each side refusing to budge and each side talking past the other. 
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #243 on: September 08, 2010, 09:02:00 PM »


/\  All the above from Papist... I am sitting here applauding!

So the two Churches will remain divided with many questions unresolved? Papist and Mary and other RC's on one side and Father Ambrose and other Orthodox on the other side, with each side refusing to budge and each side talking past the other. 

Pride is the worst of sins...

What? Yeah, I said it.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #244 on: September 08, 2010, 09:08:14 PM »

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us. 

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.


That is not correct, Mary, in the instance if the filioque.  The last official statements from our Patriarchs to the Popes very definitely term it a heresy and demand that you abandon it.   So I imagine that we have been in schism and without Apostolic Succession since the 1900s, by your criteria.  Whodda thunk it?  Maybe you are wrong?

The official letters sent to the Pope..

1. 1848.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to a letter from Pope Pius IX

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx


2.  1895.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII on reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #245 on: September 08, 2010, 09:24:18 PM »


/\  All the above from Papist... I am sitting here applauding!

So the two Churches will remain divided with many questions unresolved? Papist and Mary and other RC's on one side and Father Ambrose and other Orthodox on the other side, with each side refusing to budge and each side talking past the other. 

Pride is the worst of sins...

What? Yeah, I said it.

Stan is right.  Certainly the Orthodox are not going to budge one iota from the tradition they have received. .  The Orthodox hear this chanted in church:

"This is the faith of the Apostles. This is the faith of the Fathers. This is the faith of the Orthodox. This is the faith that upholds the universe."
Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #246 on: September 08, 2010, 09:30:54 PM »

So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 09:37:44 PM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #247 on: September 08, 2010, 09:56:47 PM »

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us. 

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.


That is not correct, Mary, in the instance if the filioque.  The last official statements from our Patriarchs to the Popes very definitely term it a heresy and demand that you abandon it.   So I imagine that we have been in schism and without Apostolic Succession since the 1900s, by your criteria.  Whodda thunk it?  Maybe you are wrong?

The official letters sent to the Pope..

1. 1848.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to a letter from Pope Pius IX

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx


2.  1895.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII on reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Great Reply to Rome By The Holy Patriarchs  Hopefully they will be canonized, if they Arn't  already.......Lord Bless them ,this is the true defense of Holy Orthodoxy that this Present Patriarch Has to return to.....
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #248 on: September 08, 2010, 10:07:03 PM »

So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko

Go ahead and Follow someone that Blew his Own Trumpet ,stacked the deck and declared himself Infallible and supreme Not the way a True Apostle of Christ would act ,only a apostle of the[      ]would act this way............. Grin
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 10:10:56 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #249 on: September 08, 2010, 10:09:47 PM »


/\  All the above from Papist... I am sitting here applauding!

So the two Churches will remain divided with many questions unresolved? Papist and Mary and other RC's on one side and Father Ambrose and other Orthodox on the other side, with each side refusing to budge and each side talking past the other. 

Pride is the worst of sins...

What? Yeah, I said it.

Stan is right.  Certainly the Orthodox are not going to budge one iota from the tradition they have received. .  The Orthodox hear this chanted in church:

"This is the faith of the Apostles. This is the faith of the Fathers. This is the faith of the Orthodox. This is the faith that upholds the universe."

And surely the Catholics can/will/would say the same thing.

I was only half joking. Unity between the two will only happen whenever they can both come to the table with unity under God in mind. I would envision an Ecumenical Council where that which can be agreed will be accepted and that which is debated is withheld (like the good ole days of the four oh ohs).

Either way, it was mostly a joke.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #250 on: September 08, 2010, 10:09:53 PM »

Aw, stop sugarcoating it, stashko, tell us what you *really* think! Grin
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #251 on: September 08, 2010, 10:11:46 PM »

So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko

Go ahead and Follow someone that Blew his Own Trumpet ,stacked the deck and declared himself Infallible and supreme Not the way a True Apostle of Christ would act ,only a Apostle of the[      ]would act this way............. Grin

He who shall not be named?!

Voldemort.... Eeek Cheesy
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #252 on: September 08, 2010, 10:37:24 PM »

^ LOL. I saw a picture out there on the net that suggest that the Pope is Emperor Palpatine, lightning shooting from his finger tips and all. Of course the the artists involved think it's an insult. I think it's awesome.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #253 on: September 08, 2010, 10:47:45 PM »

So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
LOL. Can we nail you down for a definition of when he speaks ex cathedra?  Because it seems the Vatican has been evading giving the specifics.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #254 on: September 08, 2010, 11:52:17 PM »

So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
LOL. Can we nail you down for a definition of when he speaks ex cathedra?  Because it seems the Vatican has been evading giving the specifics.
I believe the wording the Pope uses when speaking ex cathedra starts out as "we declare, define, pronounce, and proclaim" or something similar.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #255 on: September 09, 2010, 12:09:22 AM »

The number of infallible teachings is one of the mysteries held in the bosom of the Catholic Church.  Not even the Popes know.

The Roman apologist Scott Hahn says there are only TWO.

Tim Staples says there are  FOUR, and maybe more.

The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble says there are EIGHTEEN (although he is not quite sure about four of them.)

The even more famous Ludwig Ott says there are SIXTY.

So what is infallible for the Catholic Church is a bit of a guess work.

I remember that Karl Keating, the head of CAF, had his own figure for infallible statements, but I cannot remember what it was.  Lots of confusion in trhe Catholic world.  What is infallible to one Catholic is not infallible to the next.

What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #256 on: September 09, 2010, 12:20:54 AM »

What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 12:21:29 AM by Wyatt » Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #257 on: September 09, 2010, 03:02:34 AM »

Whenever the Pope speaks on faith and morals. Infallibility does not mean impeccability.
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #258 on: September 09, 2010, 03:27:58 AM »

What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
I have seen claims to the effect that Paul VI's 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae and JPII's declaration against women priests were infallible.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #259 on: September 09, 2010, 03:39:42 AM »

What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
lol. That's rather convenient, after the fact.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #260 on: September 09, 2010, 03:53:34 AM »

What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
I have seen claims to the effect that Paul VI's 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae and JPII's declaration against women priests were infallible.

This is one of the weirdest things about Catholic dogma.  Nobody, not even the Pope, seems sure what is and is not.   Theologians range themselves on one side and the other, claiming infallibility or denying infallibility for various papal teachings.

Heck, why don't the Popes make it clear when they issue their teachings?   And why don't subsequent Popes clarify if it is infallible or not, especially when the theologians and the priests and the faithful haven't a clue.

The man in the Vatican seems to cause a lot of dogmatic confusion.  What earthly use is infallibility when determining if a teaching is infallible seems to bit like spinning the wheel in a lottery. 

Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #261 on: September 09, 2010, 05:20:27 AM »

I would envision an Ecumenical Council where that which can be agreed will be accepted and that which is debated is withheld (like the good ole days of the four oh ohs).

You must be joking. "That which is debated is withheld"? That's not at all how the 400's were.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #262 on: September 09, 2010, 05:20:28 AM »

So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
LOL. Can we nail you down for a definition of when he speaks ex cathedra?  Because it seems the Vatican has been evading giving the specifics.
I believe the wording the Pope uses when speaking ex cathedra starts out as "we declare, define, pronounce, and proclaim" or something similar.

Obviously that formula was not defined until Vatican I or shortly before. What you are talking about is when papal infallibility is invoked after the fact of its definition, not the constrictions of what might have constituted ex cathedra throughout Church history.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #263 on: September 09, 2010, 05:23:02 AM »

Apparently they were unhappy because of linguistic problems!   The present day Egyptian bishops

Please note that it was not only the Egyptians who initially resisted the Tome of Leo, and thus we can infer were probably unhappy with it, even at the Council of Chalcedon. They were accompanied by the Palestinian and Illyrian bishops.

While the Palestinian and Illyrian bishops did approve the Tome after some novel orthodoxizing of its substance, it should be quite clear even from their later comments regarding it that they still weren't happy about it. For all we know there may have been even more than these three groups who were not "happy about it", per say, but were towing the line and signing onto whatever was put in front of them as the hypocritical bishops of that time were often inclined to do.

Finally, the 1500 year old Anti-Chalcedonian tradition which has for most of its time explicitly resisted Chalcedon on doctrinal grounds should make it quite clear that it was not mere linguistic problems.

The present day Egyptian bishops are quite happy with it and have officially declared, in union with the Vatican, that their previous problems were only linguistic misunderstandings between them.

It is true that some bishops in the OO churches are now advocating the idea that there was not true doctrinal difference between the two camps. Whether they represent the majority, I do not know.

It is true that the Egyptian bishops officially recognized the Agreed Statements in synodical discussion. Again, whether they did this because all were individually convinced that this was true, or they did this out of trust for their head, or they did it out of cowardice, I do not know.

However, the same bishops will in the same breath claim that the Tome of Leo was nonetheless "Nestorianizing" or "Nestorianesque", so whether they are actually happy about it, it cannot be said.

Now, so they proclaim, miaphysitism and dyophysitism are one and same.

I've said it a number of times before and I will say it again, the cause of our division is not simply "miaphysitism vs. dyophysitism".
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #264 on: September 09, 2010, 05:23:04 AM »

This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.
This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

Are you joking me? That wasn't just a matter of "church discipline". It touched on the very nature of the Church!
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #265 on: September 09, 2010, 05:23:04 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Membership
Church membership in 2007 was 1.147.000.000,[243] increasing from the 1950 figure of 437.000.000[245] and the 1970 figure of 654.000.000.[246] OOn 31 December 2008, membership was 1.166.000.000, an increase of 11.54% over the same date in 2000, only slightly greater than the rate of increase of the world population (10.77%). The increase was 33.02% in Africa, but only 1.17% in Europe. It was 15.91% in Asia, 11.39% in Oceania, and 10.93% in the Americas. As a result, Catholics were 17.77% of the total population in Africa, 63.10% in the Americas, 3.05% in Asia, 39.97% in Europe, 26.21% in Oceania, and 17.40% of the world population. Of the world's Catholics, the proportion living in Africa grew from 12.44% in 2000 to 14.84% in 2008, while those living in Europe fell from 26.81% to 24.31%.[1] Membership of the Catholic Church is attained through baptism.[247] If someone formally leaves the Church, that fact is noted in the register of the person's baptism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Number_of_adherents
Based on the numbers of adherents, Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian communion in the world after the Roman Catholic Church.[12] The most common estimates of the number of Orthodox Christians worldwide is approximately 300.000.000[13].
Orthodoxy is the largest single religious faith in Belarus (85%), Bulgaria (83%), Cyprus (80%), Georgia (89%), Greece (95%),[14] Moldova (98%), Montenegro (74%),[15] Romania (87%), Serbia (84%),[16] Russia (80%),[17] Republic of Macedonia (65%) and Ukraine (80%).[18]
In my opinion, the number of Orthodox in the former Soviet Union is inflated because other sources claim that there are huge numbers of atheists and agnostics there.

Why did you post this?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #266 on: September 09, 2010, 05:23:04 AM »

Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

Huh? There can be no unity in dogmatic divergence.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #267 on: September 09, 2010, 05:23:04 AM »


I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Contrary to the odd Roman Catholic belief that the keys are something given to the Prime Minister of Israel, the keys are in fact the powers of binding and loosing given to all the Apostles and I believe that is recorded in the 18th chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel.

The bishops take their power through Peter's successor.

Rank heresy of course, but it is good that you have brought the belief out into the open.

Quote
You can fuss and wiggle and snark all you like but the Petrine Office is of divine origin

Again heresy in the eyes of the Church.

Quote
, and for the first time in a long time you fellows have managed to make me quite contented to be an integral part of it.

You are writing as if this is the first time you have encountered the Orthodox rejection of the papacy?

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no
doubt: this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Saint Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

I thought ecumenism was the heresy of heresies?  Huh
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #268 on: September 09, 2010, 05:23:04 AM »

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church?

They're not. The Church is united either way you look at it.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #269 on: September 09, 2010, 05:23:04 AM »

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us. 

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.

Mary

That's just an outrageous claim, Mary. You know that significant numbers of EO/OO hierarchs have historically condemned papal supremacy and demanded that you recant of it.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Tags: cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   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 0.182 seconds with 72 queries.