OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 05:25:17 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?  (Read 11626 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #225 on: June 28, 2011, 09:49:04 AM »

I on the other hand provided substantiation of what I said with my linked reference to the chaotic situation in the Catholic Church where some bishops reject papal infallibility and 15 of the Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope (message 216.)  What a nightmare!!

Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)

There's really nothing wrong with certain Catholics believing that there have only been 7 ecumenical councils, provided they affirm the teachings of all 21 general councils.

Sometimes nit-picking is a good thing   Smiley
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #226 on: June 28, 2011, 09:52:24 AM »

I on the other hand provided substantiation of what I said with my linked reference to the chaotic situation in the Catholic Church where some bishops reject papal infallibility and 15 of the Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope (message 216.)  What a nightmare!!

Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)

There's really nothing wrong with certain Catholics believing that there have only been 7 ecumenical councils, provided they affirm the teachings of all 21 general councils.

But as you can see, they don't accept the doctrines!  The Melkites deny, for example, the teaching on papal infallibility of your 20th Ecumenical Council.  Regnat chaos!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #227 on: June 28, 2011, 09:55:15 AM »

I on the other hand provided substantiation of what I said with my linked reference to the chaotic situation in the Catholic Church where some bishops reject papal infallibility and 15 of the Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope (message 216.)  What a nightmare!!

Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)

There's really nothing wrong with certain Catholics believing that there have only been 7 ecumenical councils, provided they affirm the teachings of all 21 general councils.

Sometimes nit-picking is a good thing   Smiley

Mea culpa!  I can never keep it straight in my head - how many Ecumenical Councils you have had and how many Catholic Churches.   laugh  I know both are around 20.
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: 37,449



« Reply #228 on: June 28, 2011, 10:00:09 AM »



"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary
I've been trying (computer keeps on freezing) to get on line links to the works you listed in that fruit salad of a post of yours-apples, oranges, and even cumquats-with this assertion.  They show far more unanomity than the Baltimore Catechism, the Dutch Catechism and the CCC.  And they're all catechisms, unlike the Catechisms, systematic dogmatic theologies, popular overviews (for a non-Orthodox audience, btw), meditative commentaries, reformist essays, etc. you posted:i.e. the difference seem to be in genre, not belief.

I've been to 11 of the 15 autocephalous Churches, and an autonomous one (Finland).  It is as Father Ambrose described.
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
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: 37,449



« Reply #229 on: June 28, 2011, 10:06:31 AM »



"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare. 

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #230 on: June 28, 2011, 10:09:14 AM »



"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare. 

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 laugh laugh laugh  What makes you think I think you count... Grin
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: 37,449



« Reply #231 on: June 28, 2011, 10:12:06 AM »



"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare. 

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!

My dear lady, who knows if what you alleged is false or not?  You made vague accusations which as usual you did not even bother to specify or substantiate (message 214.)

I on the other hand provided substantiation of what I said with my linked reference to the chaotic situation in the Catholic Church where some bishops reject papal infallibility and 15 of the Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope (message 216.)  What a nightmare!!

It would seem that she is following the style of her magisterium, which is ever so vague when it comes to specifying what exactly is infallible, while vaunting this vague infallibility as proof of its superiority.  Never wants to be pinned down by details that can be examined:case in point, even on the three ex cathedra statements they all seem to agree on, I've seen disagreement on what part exactly of them are infallible.  We have similar disagreements on the works of the Ecumenical Councils (e.g. many, like myself take the canons as inspired but not infallible), but the Vatican is the one who faults us for an alleged lack of "specificity."
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
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: 37,449



« Reply #232 on: June 28, 2011, 10:13:11 AM »



"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 laugh laugh laugh  What makes you think I think you count... Grin
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 10:14:16 AM by ialmisry » 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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #233 on: June 28, 2011, 10:21:54 AM »

It would seem that she is following the style of her magisterium, which is ever so vague when it comes to specifying what exactly is infallible, while vaunting this vague infallibility as proof of its superiority.  

I've seen this sort of statement on this forum before. But it would be interesting to see the magisterial statement/document to which you are referring.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #234 on: June 28, 2011, 10:38:23 AM »



"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 laugh laugh laugh  What makes you think I think you count... Grin
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.

 Wink
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,026


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #235 on: June 28, 2011, 09:13:16 PM »

Forums are for responding to posts. That doesn't make each post 'obsessive.'

Besides, you responded to her after that, didn't you, Isa?  Cheesy
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #236 on: June 29, 2011, 12:13:13 AM »



"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 laugh laugh laugh  What makes you think I think you count... Grin
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.
Says the guy with over 18,000 posts Tongue
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: 37,449



« Reply #237 on: June 29, 2011, 12:17:26 AM »



"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 laugh laugh laugh  What makes you think I think you count... Grin
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.
Says the guy with over 18,000 posts Tongue
So I know what I'm talking about.
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 #238 on: June 29, 2011, 12:30:39 AM »



"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 laugh laugh laugh  What makes you think I think you count... Grin
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.
Says the guy with over 18,000 posts Tongue
So I know what I'm talking about.
You know how to obsess too. Wink
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #239 on: June 29, 2011, 02:23:02 AM »



"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 laugh laugh laugh  What makes you think I think you count... Grin
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.
Says the guy with over 18,000 posts Tongue
So I know what I'm talking about.
With 18,000 posts, its more like we know what you are talking about?!?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #240 on: June 29, 2011, 03:32:36 AM »


Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)


Don't you count Constantinople IV in 869 as your 8th Ecumenical Council?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #241 on: June 29, 2011, 09:41:30 AM »


Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)


Don't you count Constantinople IV in 869 as your 8th Ecumenical Council?


Yes. Then there were 8 General Councils between then and Florence, then 4 more since Florence (Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II). So 21 total.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #242 on: June 29, 2011, 04:11:48 PM »


Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)


Don't you count Constantinople IV in 869 as your 8th Ecumenical Council?


Yes. Then there were 8 General Councils between then and Florence, then 4 more since Florence (Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II). So 21 total.

If I understand the newfangled distinction between Ecumenical Councils and General Councils

1.  Ecumenical Councils:-- 

8 of them.

Convened by the Popes in cities of the area of what is now Turkey

Attended by hundreds of Catholic bishops from the Eastern segment of the Church

Attended by two or three bishops from Italy or Spain.


After the 8th Ecumenical Council of Constantinople IV in 869 there have been no more Ecumenical Councils in the Catholic Church


2.  General Councils:--

13 of them

All held in Italy (?)

Attended by Italian and French and Spanish Bishops

Considered as Regional Councils of the Church of Rome



Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #243 on: June 29, 2011, 08:05:48 PM »

Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #244 on: June 29, 2011, 08:12:31 PM »

Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

There's a lot of ignorance about.  Constantinople IV in 869 must be counted as the 8th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholics.

Interesting that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since then.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #245 on: June 29, 2011, 08:25:53 PM »

Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

There's a lot of ignorance about.  Constantinople IV in 869 must be counted as the 8th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholics.

Interesting that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since then.

I wouldn't describe that as "interesting" so much as "mistaken".

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #246 on: June 29, 2011, 08:27:04 PM »

Forgive me for cutting and pasting, but I think a couple things I posted a month ago might be helpful here ...

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

I think the interesting thing is that the West did not seize on that fact and say, See it was an ecumenical council.

For example, from Session 23 (26 March 1436) of the Council of Florence:

Quote
... firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel ...

Notice that, out of the general councils, Florence distinguishing only 8 (not counting itself) as having been ecumenical councils.

In the mid-to-late 16th century, certain Catholics (St. Robert Belarmine particularly comes to mind) basically threw out the distinction between the terms "general councils" and "ecumenical councils". Hence, 8 councils (4 at the Lateran, 2 in Lyons, 1 in Constance, and 1 in Vienne) were added en masse to their list of ecumenical councils.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #247 on: June 29, 2011, 08:29:05 PM »

Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

There's a lot of ignorance about.  Constantinople IV in 869 must be counted as the 8th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholics.

Interesting that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since then.

I wouldn't describe that as "interesting" so much as "mistaken".

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.


The 8th Ecumenical Council in 869 was the last Council the Pope convened in (modern) Turkey.

After that he convened only regional General Councils in Italy.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #248 on: June 29, 2011, 08:41:01 PM »



"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 laugh laugh laugh  What makes you think I think you count... Grin
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.
Says the guy with over 18,000 posts Tongue
So I know what I'm talking about.
ROFL
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #249 on: June 29, 2011, 09:22:52 PM »

Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

There's a lot of ignorance about.  Constantinople IV in 869 must be counted as the 8th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholics.

Interesting that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since then.

I wouldn't describe that as "interesting" so much as "mistaken".

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

Right.  I believe that in several instances, the Vatican refers to the first 7 as "Ecumenical" and the others as "General." 
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #250 on: June 29, 2011, 10:16:49 PM »

Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

There's a lot of ignorance about.  Constantinople IV in 869 must be counted as the 8th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholics.

Interesting that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since then.

I wouldn't describe that as "interesting" so much as "mistaken".

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

Do you have a source for this? I've always heard that there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils. I didn't know we were allowed to reject the Ecumenical status of any of them.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #251 on: June 29, 2011, 11:01:08 PM »

Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

There's a lot of ignorance about.  Constantinople IV in 869 must be counted as the 8th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholics.

Interesting that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since then.

I wouldn't describe that as "interesting" so much as "mistaken".

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

Do you have a source for this? I've always heard that there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils. I didn't know we were allowed to reject the Ecumenical status of any of them.

Well, since we are to firmly believe all the General Councils (see the quote from the Council of Florence) I wouldn't lose too much sleep over which ones are Ecumenical Councils (just as I wouldn't lose too much sleep over whether Unam Sanctum was ex cathedra or not).

But more specifically, the fact is that the Vatican has not issued an official statement on how many of the General Councils are to be considered Ecumenical Councils.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #252 on: June 29, 2011, 11:13:11 PM »

Just as a point of terminology, to avoid possible confusion, I should mention that some Catholics use the phrase "General Councils" in a slightly different way than I've been using it here. Namely, I've been speaking of "21 General Councils", including the Ecumenical Councils (i.e. an Ecumenical Council is necessarily a General Council, a General Council is not necessarily a Ecumenical Council). But some understand "General Council" to mean not Ecumenical. Hence they would speak of 21 "General Councils and Ecumenical Councils".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #253 on: June 30, 2011, 01:31:03 AM »

So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
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: 37,449



« Reply #254 on: June 30, 2011, 01:42:52 AM »

So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?
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 #255 on: June 30, 2011, 03:43:32 AM »

So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Melkite Catholics, and probably other Eastern Catholics, reject papal infalliblity.  They point out that Vatican I is a (regional) General Council of the Church of Rome, it is not Ecumenical and it is not binding on the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.

Oddly enough, the Vatican does nothing to prohibit this.  And yet the Eastern Catholics incur an Anathema by denying the Pope's infallibility!!

"Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit; anathema sit."

Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #256 on: June 30, 2011, 04:07:40 AM »

So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Melkite Catholics, and probably other Eastern Catholics, reject papal infalliblity.  They point out that Vatican I is a (regional) General Council of the Church of Rome, it is not Ecumenical and it is not binding on the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.

Oddly enough, the Vatican does nothing to prohibit this.  And yet the Eastern Catholics incur an Anathema by denying the Pope's infallibility!!

"Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit; anathema sit."


According to Canon 597 of the Code of canons of Oriental Churches:
Canon 597
1. The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of
all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers
in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine
of faith or morals is to be held.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #257 on: June 30, 2011, 04:44:56 AM »

So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Melkite Catholics, and probably other Eastern Catholics, reject papal infalliblity.  They point out that Vatican I is a (regional) General Council of the Church of Rome, it is not Ecumenical and it is not binding on the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.

Oddly enough, the Vatican does nothing to prohibit this.  And yet the Eastern Catholics incur an Anathema by denying the Pope's infallibility!!

"Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit; anathema sit."


According to Canon 597 of the Code of canons of Oriental Churches:
Canon 597
1. The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of
all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers
in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine
of faith or morals is to be held.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM


So what do you do with Eastern Catholics who openly reject papal infallibility?


An Eastern Catholic statement:

o.....Since the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox do not understand Original Sin in the same way as the Latins, the concept of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense in Eastern theology

o.....The Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma [this is a rejection of Canon you quote.]

http://www.mliles.com/melkite/theotokosminorconception.shtml

There are more atrocities on the web page.

It shows that the Canon you quoted means zilch to Eastern Catholics
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #258 on: June 30, 2011, 04:55:09 AM »

/\   We see why the Vatican never allows the Eastern Catholics to participate in the dialogue with the Orthodox!

Imagine the headlines when the media realises that there are large numbers of Catholic bishops who openly deny the Pope is infallible and pretty much agree with the Orthodox on most issues where the Pope and the Orthodox are at loggerheads!!!

The topic of the thread is "Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?"  Believe me, we need this kind of disunity in essential areas as much as we need a hole in the head.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #259 on: June 30, 2011, 09:25:39 AM »

So what do you do with Eastern Catholics who openly reject papal infallibility?

It's not clear to me whether it the teaching itself that they reject, or just misunderstanding/exaggerations of it. Iason wrote a lengthy post about this, so I refer you to it:

Quote from: Iason
Quote from: Nelson Chase
Here are some words to ponder from the Melkite Patriarch that seem to indicate his postion.

Also, on the issue of Infallibily and later councils

According to his Beatitude the teachings of these councils are not binding on Eastern Catholics as they are only Local Councils of the Western Church. They are not set in stone and need to be clarified.

 http://www.mliles.com/melkite/patholyapostles.pdf 
I'm glad that you mentioned this document.  I'm not at all inclined to think that it ought to be understood the way that you suggest in your glosses, though (in fact, I think it probably shouldn't be understood that way at all).  I'll say why.

The first quote requires some larger context.  Here it is:

Quote
The ecclesiological dimension has the leading role in the ecumenical movement in the world. But why is the ecumenical movement now in deep crisis, quite in agony? After the meeting in Balamand, the International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches met once in the United States (in Baltimore), without any result, and since then has not met any more.

All these things are urging us to go ahead in our prophetical role, in the line of my predecessors Gregorios II and Maximos IV.

But we must not forget that the official theological position of Rome does not represent the position of all Western Catholics. As it was recently underlined by Archbishop John Raphael Quinn, there are Roman Catholic theologians who do not completely and fully accept the ecclesiology of the First and Second Vatican Councils. This is why our firm decision to achieve our initiative will let us get into the arena of the international ecumenical movement and work.
Now, the train of thought here seems to go like this: The ecumenical movement is in crisis; Catholics and Orthodox have stopped talking.  This urges us to take up the cause in our own prophetical role.  But (notice: the "but" is stating an apparent opposition to the Melkites taking up their proper role) some Roman Catholics don't fully accept the ecclesiology of Vatican I and Vatican II.  This is why we can and must get into the ecumenical arena and work.

Now, given the word "but," which appears to make it sound as if the fact that some Roman Catholics don't fully accept the ecclesiology of Vatican I and II is an opposition to the Melkites playing a role in ecumenism, how are we to understand this?  Well, there are at least two ways in which some Roman Catholics don't fully accept the ecclesiology of Vatican I and II.  Some might deny that the pope is infallible, true.  But why would that be opposed to the Melkites taking up their role in the ecumenical movement?  It doesn't seem that it would.  On the other hand, some Roman Catholics might not fully accept Vatican I and II because they might not be accepting of the not purely monarchical, non-exaggerated, non-ultramontane view of the pope (expressed particularly in Vatican II, but also to some degree in Vatican I) in which other bishops, including Eastern bishops and patriarchs, have true rights and privileges from Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit rather than as mere "delegates" of the pope, and in which the pope's infallibility is presented as a corollary of the Church's infallibility.  In other words, they might have much too strong views about the pope, and much too limited views about the rights and privileges of the bishops (particularly the Eastern bishops), in opposition to what is actually taught at Vatican II in particular.  That would be an obvious obstacle to Melkite involvement in the ecumenical movement between Rome and Orthodoxy.  In fact, this is precisely the misunderstanding of Vatican I that Patriarch Maximos IV warned about at Vatican II:

Quote
The supporters of this extremist opinion [are] aware that Tradition is not on their side . . . With this method [of reasoning] it can also be claimed that ordinary priests obtain their canonical mission from the pope, but indirectly, through the intermediary of their bishops. Following this train of thought, we can ask ourselves what, in the Church, does not issue from the pope! The very excesses of these deductions show that the method is scientifically condemnable and that the deductions are unjustified.

5. The supporters of the opinion that we are opposing have recourse to another deduction. They claim that their opinion is a logical conclusion of the dogma of Roman primacy. Therefore, they say, according to the definition of Vatican Council I, the pope possesses an ordinary, episcopal, and immediate power over the pastors and the faithful, and the bishops obtain their power over their respective dioceses only through the pope's mandate. To this we reply: the definition of Vatican Council I does not in any way include a statement that the pope is the ultimate and sole source of all power in the Church. Someone can have authority over another without being the source of all authority for this other person. The two things are distinct. To pass from one to the other is to surreptitiously desire the Church to accept a new dogma that Vatican Council I in no way defined, even though it could have done so.
So, to put the point shortly, your first quote appears to be best understood as saying that some people don't fully accept Vatican II and the proper understanding of Vatican I according to which the bishops, including the Eastern Catholic bishops, have full rights and privileges by virtue of their office and are not as mere delegates of the ultramontane pope.  That could prevent Melkites from taking up their prophetical role in the ecumenical movement.  But it is also precisely why Melkites must take initiative and work to play a real, assertive role.  On this understanding, there is no (even implicit) denial of the dogma of Vatican I or Vatican II to be found in this quote at all.

The second quote you cite says only that we must "explain and clarify" topics that are obstacles to full communion with the Orthodox.  Yes, these include the primacy of the pope, Western councils, and other theological dogmas (note: the quote says that they are theological dogmas).  Nothing said in this quote says what you assert, namely that, "the teachings of these councils are not binding on Eastern Catholics as they are only Local Councils of the Western Church."  It only says that those councils were not all ecumenical, which is obviously true, and that the topics must be explained and clarified (not denied, as in the first post that started this thread).  It is still possible for non-ecumenical, local councils to produce infallible declarations of dogma, insofar as they may include infallible declarations of the pope.  This seems to be the case with Trent, for example, about which Patriarch Maximos IV said (I quote again):

Quote
The indissolubility of marriage has been solemnly defined by the Council of Trent. It is an object of faith for every Catholic and closes the door to all discussion. Period.
That contradicts your way of glossing the quote.  Again, then, given the total evidence (including also previous quotes I've provided from Melkite hierarchs about the infallibility of the pope and the authority of Vatican I), the best way to understand what you've quoted seems to be to understand it as saying that there are post-schism dogmas that we must accept, but that must be explained and clarified to our Orthodox brethren and said not to be the result of truly ecumenical councils.  They can still be binding, even so.

In summary, these appear to be two not-entirely-clear quotations that do not really challenge the position I've been speaking on behalf of here, and in fact seem best explained by that position.  The overall evidence still seems to suggest to me that Melkites are to accept post-schism "Latin" dogma as authoritative, though it is permissible to give them a more Eastern interpretation.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #260 on: June 30, 2011, 09:27:54 AM »

So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Well obviously it wouldn't make much sense to restrict "submission of the will and assent of faith to [our] supreme pontiff" to cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #261 on: June 30, 2011, 09:35:50 AM »

So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Well obviously it wouldn't make much sense to restrict "submission of the will and assent of faith to [our] supreme pontiff" to cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  I find that quite interesting. 
 
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. 

Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.  In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to all papal teachings.
 
While this may be acceptable to Roman Catholics, it is highly unlikely that Melkite Catholics and the other 21 Catholic Churches accept it.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #262 on: June 30, 2011, 09:43:20 AM »

So what do you do with Eastern Catholics who openly reject papal infallibility?

It's not clear to me whether it the teaching itself that they reject, or just misunderstanding/exaggerations of it.


EWTN speaks of the rejection of various omportant Roman Catholic teachings by the autonomous Catholic Churches..   Mildy expressed as you would expect and really not at all indicative of the massive dissent simmering in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

"Disputes among the indigenous
clergy and the immigrant Byzantine clergy have often resulted in whole
parishes leaving the Catholic communion to be received back into Orthodox
folds.  (See the COMMENTS for the Carpatho-Ruthenians below.)  Other
sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and
Infallibility, Purgatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extent
remarriage after divorce; in short, all the matters that remain primary
points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics.  The terms of the
original agreement are clear that agreement with Rome on these matters is
expected."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #263 on: June 30, 2011, 09:50:27 AM »

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  I find that quite interesting. 
 

My response to you is pretty much the same as my response to isamisry: it wouldn't make a lot of sense to only require assent to the teachings of the Pope in cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #264 on: June 30, 2011, 09:52:44 AM »

So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?

Personally, I take the view that, for the time being, Catholics shouldn't worry too much about which ones are "General Councils" and which ones are "Ecumenical Councils".

Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite. Why? Because the EOs insist that there have been 7 "Ecumenical Councils" but the OOs insist that there have been only 3.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #265 on: June 30, 2011, 09:57:31 AM »

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  I find that quite interesting. 
 

My response to you is pretty much the same as my response to isamisry: it wouldn't make a lot of sense to only require assent to the teachings of the Pope in cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.


The problem is that the one man in the world who claims to be able to speak ex cathedra himself does not know how many ex cathedra statement he and his previous petrine incarnations have issued.

That doesn't inspire confidence, does it? 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #266 on: June 30, 2011, 10:06:43 AM »

Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite.
 

You are jesting?

Read message 45 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13683.msg191067.html#msg191067

The Christology of Pope Shenouda of the Copts causes conniptions with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #267 on: June 30, 2011, 10:33:26 AM »

Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?

Welcome to St. Scaredycat's

"You're new in the suburbs, and it's Sunday morning, so you drive over to the nearest Catholic Church -- uh, make that community. You walk into the modern cement structure and are accosted by a GREETER, who welcomes you with a moist handshake... "

This was placed in the New Oxford Review years ago by Catholics who were waging war on liturgical abuse.

I won't put the whole article here since, although it can give you a laugh, it can also be offensive/saddening to sincere Catholics who care about good reverent liturgy.

So for the whole article please go here and it is the second one from the bottom of the page.
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/adgallery3.jsp
« Last Edit: June 30, 2011, 10:41:58 AM by Irish Hermit » 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: 37,449



« Reply #268 on: June 30, 2011, 10:50:14 AM »

Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite.
 

You are jesting?

Read message 45 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13683.msg191067.html#msg191067

The Christology of Pope Shenouda of the Copts causes conniptions with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.
Quote
"The term "Monophysites" used for the believers in the One Nature has been intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted throughout certain periods of history. Consequently, the Coptic and the Syrian Churches in particular were cruelly persecuted because of their belief, especially during the period which started from the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 A,D. and continued to the conquest of the Arabs in Egypt and
Syria (about 641 A.D.).

"This misinterpretation continued along history as though we believed in one nature of Christ and denied the other nature. We wonder which of the two natures the Church of Alexandria denies?"
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 #269 on: June 30, 2011, 10:59:48 AM »

Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite.
 

You are jesting?

Read message 45 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13683.msg191067.html#msg191067

The Christology of Pope Shenouda of the Copts causes conniptions with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.



Reading a few articles here will dispel the idea that there are no problems between our theologies
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx

Also this, from a site of the Russian Church Abroad
http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/strongarm.htm
Logged
Tags: cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   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 0.224 seconds with 73 queries.