OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 12:21:56 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 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Question on the Pope  (Read 15632 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #90 on: August 05, 2011, 02:33:55 PM »

Based on the replies to my post, could I summerize that Papal Infallability was not always part of the faith but it is a new relevation of the RCC faith. 

In other words Pope Benedict has it, but Peter and every Pope before Vatican I never did. 

Would this be an accurate understanding?

Absolutely...if you are Orthodox...or protestant!!
or a historian, or an honest follower of the Vatican who has passed on the Kool Aid.
Must you always say everything in the most mocking, insensitive way possible?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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 #91 on: August 05, 2011, 03:30:47 PM »

Based on the replies to my post, could I summerize that Papal Infallability was not always part of the faith but it is a new relevation of the RCC faith. 

In other words Pope Benedict has it, but Peter and every Pope before Vatican I never did. 

Would this be an accurate understanding?

Absolutely...if you are Orthodox...or protestant!!
or a historian, or an honest follower of the Vatican who has passed on the Kool Aid.
Must you always say everything in the most mocking, insensitive way possible?
No.  In this case EM was just being repaid with the same coin she was selling her comment.
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 #92 on: August 05, 2011, 03:51:13 PM »

Based on the replies to my post, could I summerize that Papal Infallability was not always part of the faith but it is a new relevation of the RCC faith.  

In other words Pope Benedict has it, but Peter and every Pope before Vatican I never did.  

Would this be an accurate understanding?

Absolutely...if you are Orthodox...or protestant!!
or a historian, or an honest follower of the Vatican who has passed on the Kool Aid.
Must you always say everything in the most mocking, insensitive way possible?
No.  In this case EM was just being repaid with the same coin she was selling her comment.
Except what she said was true. If you're Eastern/Oriental Orthodox or a Protestant you will reject Papal Infallibility. She also wasn't rude about it.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 03:51:34 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #93 on: August 05, 2011, 04:24:15 PM »

If you're Eastern/Oriental Orthodox or a Protestant you will reject Papal Infallibility. She also wasn't rude about it.

That's certainly true, but I don't think it answers ody30's question:

Based on the replies to my post, could I summerize that Papal Infallability was not always part of the faith but it is a new relevation of the RCC faith. 

In other words Pope Benedict has it, but Peter and every Pope before Vatican I never did. 

Would this be an accurate understanding?

ody, I believe that what was dogmatically defined at Vatican I was always part of the faith.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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 #94 on: August 05, 2011, 04:30:29 PM »

Based on the replies to my post, could I summerize that Papal Infallability was not always part of the faith but it is a new relevation of the RCC faith.  

In other words Pope Benedict has it, but Peter and every Pope before Vatican I never did.  

Would this be an accurate understanding?

Absolutely...if you are Orthodox...or protestant!!
or a historian, or an honest follower of the Vatican who has passed on the Kool Aid.
Must you always say everything in the most mocking, insensitive way possible?
No.  In this case EM was just being repaid with the same coin she was selling her comment.
Except what she said was true. If you're Eastern/Oriental Orthodox or a Protestant
or an adherent of the Vatican before 1870, as has been demonstrated above (IIRC Hefele had to redo his magnus opus, because his supreme pontiffs weren't infallible when he started it, but became "infallible" before he finished).
you will reject Papal Infallibility
no, you won't accept papal infallibility.  Another a key yet subtle difference.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 04:37:00 PM 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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #95 on: August 05, 2011, 04:35:39 PM »

Based on the replies to my post, could I summerize that Papal Infallability was not always part of the faith but it is a new relevation of the RCC faith.  

In other words Pope Benedict has it, but Peter and every Pope before Vatican I never did.  

Would this be an accurate understanding?

Absolutely...if you are Orthodox...or protestant!!
or a historian, or an honest follower of the Vatican who has passed on the Kool Aid.
Must you always say everything in the most mocking, insensitive way possible?
No.  In this case EM was just being repaid with the same coin she was selling her comment.
Except what she said was true. If you're Eastern/Oriental Orthodox or a Protestant
or an adherent of the Vatican before 1870, as has been demonstrated above
Yeah, the understanding of the role of the Pope was not as clear prior to being dogmatically defined, just as the understanding of the Trinity wasn't as clear prior to Nicea I.

you will reject Papal Infallibility
no, you won't accept papal infallibility.  Another a key yet subtle difference.
Not accepting and rejecting are the same thing. Here we go with your semantic games again. Undecided
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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 #96 on: August 05, 2011, 04:49:13 PM »

Based on the replies to my post, could I summerize that Papal Infallability was not always part of the faith but it is a new relevation of the RCC faith.  

In other words Pope Benedict has it, but Peter and every Pope before Vatican I never did.  

Would this be an accurate understanding?

Absolutely...if you are Orthodox...or protestant!!
or a historian, or an honest follower of the Vatican who has passed on the Kool Aid.
Must you always say everything in the most mocking, insensitive way possible?
No.  In this case EM was just being repaid with the same coin she was selling her comment.
Except what she said was true. If you're Eastern/Oriental Orthodox or a Protestant
or an adherent of the Vatican before 1870, as has been demonstrated above
Yeah, the understanding of the role of the Pope was not as clear prior to being dogmatically defined, just as the understanding of the Trinity wasn't as clear prior to Nicea I.
no, the role your supreme pontiff arrogated to himself at Vatican I was denied before, e.g.:
Quote
Archbishop Scherr, of Munich, was a personal friend of Dr. Dollinger, and was at first one of the opponents of the dogma of infallibility. At the railway station of Munich, as he was starting to attend the Vatican Council, he assured Dr. D611inger that in 'he event (which the archbishop thought improbable) of the dogma being proposed in the Council, it should have his determined opposition. For a time the archbishop took his place among the minority of the Council, but he yielded at last, and excommunicated Dr. Dollinger for not following his example. Yet I never heard Dr. Dollinger speak bitterly of him. On the contrary, he made excuses for him j urged that he had acted under pressure from Rome; pleaded that he had more piety than strength of character; and declared that he was bound to act as he did, or resign his see. To illustrate the archbishop s esprit exalte", which subordinated his judgment to his religious emotions, Dr. Dollinger one day told me the following anecdote, on the authority of Archbishop Scherr himself. When the archbishop received information from Rome that he was to be presented with the archiepiscopal pallium on a given day, he immediately began to prepare himself for this great honor by devoting the interval to retirement and religious exercises. The pallium is generally, but not invariably, made by the nuns of one of the Roman convents from the wool of lambs kept on purpose — a fact which added to the honor of the gift. On the stated day, the archbishop's servant announced the arrival of the messenger with the pall. The archbishop expected a special envoy from the Vatican and a formal investituretsanctified by the papal benediction, instead of which there walked into his presence a Jewish banker with a bundle under his arm, out of which he presently produced the pall with a bill for £200. Keenly as Dr. Dollinger entered into the humor of the story, he really told it as an illustration of the archbishop's simplicity of character, and by way of excusing his conduct in excommunicating himself. "To him," he said, " the dogma presents no insuperable difficulty, and he cannot understand why it should present any to me. He bows to authority, and cannot see that authority has no more to do with historical facts than it has to do with mathematical facts." He was always prone to make excuses for the bishops who accepted the dogma of infallibility—even for those who had been among its most prominent opponents at the Vatican Council. He snowed me once a letter from one of the latter, in which the writer—a distinguished prelate — declared that he was in sad perplexity. He had proclaimed the dogma, he said, while stiU remaining in the same mind in which he had opposed it at the Council. "But what could I do?" he asked. "Can one be in the Church and be out of communion with the pope? Yet can it be right to proclaim what one does not believe? Such is my dilemma, and it has made me so unhappy that I have thought of resigning my see. On reflection, I nave chosen what 1 consider the safest course." "Allowance must be made for these men," said Dr. Dollinger. "Habit is second nature, and their mental attitude has been so invariably that of unquestioning obedience to papal authority, that when they have to choose between that authority and allegiance to what they believe to be historical truth, their second nature asserts itself and they yield."

On a subsequent occasion, I asked Dr. DOllinger if he thought the Bishop of Rottenourg (Dr. Hefele) would end by accepting the dogma. The case was in one way a crucial one. As an authority on the historical bearings of the question, Hefele was the best equipped man at the Council. His masterly "History of the Councils " is accepted as the standard authority on all hands. Not only did he oppose the dogma at the Vatican Council, but during the sitting of the Council he published, through the Neapolitan press, a pamphlet against it, basing his opposition on the example of Honorius as a test case. Perrone, the great theologian of the Roman College, and a strong Infallibilist, has laid it down in his standard work on "Dogmatic Theology," that if only one pope can be proved to have given, ex cathedrd, a heterodox decision on faith or morals, the whole doctrine collapses. Hefele accordingly took the case of Honorius, and proved that this pope had been condemned as a heretic by popes and oecumenical councils. Pennachi, professor of church history in Rome, replied to Hefele, and Hefele returned to the charge in a rejoinder so powerful that he was left master of the field. If therefore Hefele, so honest as well as so able and learned, accepted the dogma, it was not likely that any other bishop of the minority would hold out. "He must yield," said Dr. Dollinger to me, three months after the prorogation of the Vatican Council, "or resign his see. His quinquennial faculties have expired and the pope refuses to renew them until Hefele accepts the decree. At this moment there are nineteen couples of rank in his diocese who cannot get married because they are within the forbidden degrees, and Hefele cannot grant them dispensations." "But since he denies the pope's infallibility," I asked, "why does he not himself grant the necessary dispensations?" "My friend," replied Dollinger, "you forget that the members of the Church of Rome have been brought up in the belief that a dispensation is not valid without these papal faculties, and a marriage under any other dispensation would not be acknowledged in society." The event proved that DSllinger was right. The quinquennial faculties are a tremendous power in the hands of the pope. They are, in fact, papal licenses, renewed every five years, which enable the bishops to exercise extraordinary episcopal functions that ordinarily belong to the pope, such as the power of absolving from heresy, schism, apostasy, secret crime (except murder), from vows, obligations of fasting, prohibition of marriage within the prohibited degrees, and also the power to permit the reading of prohibited books. It is obvious that the extinction of the quinquennial faculties in a diocese means the paralysis in a short time of its ordinary administration. It amounts to a sort of modified interdict. And so Dr. Hefele soon discovered. The dogma was proclaimed in the Vatican Council on the iSth of July, 1870, and on the 10th of the following April Hefele submitted. But he was too honest to let it be inferred that his submission was due to any change of conviction. He deemed it his duty to submit in spite of his convictions, because "the peace and unity of the Church is so great a good that great and heavy personal sacrifices may be made for it." Bishop Strossmayer held out longest of all; but he yielded at last, so far as to allow the dogma to be published in the official gazette of his diocese during his absence in Rome. Nevertheless, he remained to the last on the most friendly terms with Dr. Dollinger, and it was to a letter from Dr. Dollinger that I was indebted for a most interesting visit to Bishop Strossmayer in Croatia in 1876.

To some able and honest minds Dr. Dollinger's attitude on the question of infallibility is a puzzle. His refusal to accept the dogma, while he submitted meekly to an excommunication which he believed to be unjust, seems to them an inconsistency. This view is put forward in an interesting article on Dr. Dollinger in the Spectator of last January 18, and, as it is a view which is probably held by many, I quote the gist of the article before I tryto show what Dr. Dollinger's point of view really was: —

There was something very English in Dr. Dollinger's illogical pertinacity in holding his own position on points of detail, in spite of the inconsistency of that position on points of detail with the logic of his general creed. He was, in fact, more tenacious of what his historical learning had taught him, than he was of the a priori position which he had previously assumed — namely, that a true Church must be infallible, and that his Church was actually infallible. No one had taught this more distinctly than Dr. Dollinger. Yet first iie found one erroneous drift in the practical teaching of his Church, then hefound another, and then when at last his Church formally declared that the true providential guarantee of her infallibility extended only to the Papal definition of any dogma touching faith and morals promulgated with a view to teach the Church, he ignored that decree, though it was sanctioned by one of the most unanimous as well as one of the most numerously attended of her Councils, and preferred to submit to excommunication rather than to profess his acceptance of it. And then later he came, we believe, to declare that he was no more bound by the decrees of the Council of Trent than be was by the decrees of the Council of the Vatican. None the less he always submitted to the disciplinary authority of the Church, even after he had renounced virtually her dogmatic authority. He never celebrated mass nor assumed any of the functions of a priest after his excommunication. In other words, he obeyed the Church in matters in which no one had ever claimed for her that she could not err, after he had ceased to obey htr in matters in which he had formerly taught that she could not err, and in which, so far as we know, he had only in his latter years taught that she could err by explicitly rejecting the decrees of one or two General Councils. . . . When she said to him, "Don't celebrate mass any more," he seems to have regarded himself as more bound to obey her than when she said to him, "Believe what I teil you."

Dr. Dollinger would not have accepted this as an accurate statement of his position. He would have denied that the dogma of infallibility "was sanctioned by one of the most unanimous" of the Church's Councils, and would have pointed to the protest of more than eighty of the most learned and influential bishops in the Roman communion, whose subsequent submission he would have discounted for reasons already indicated. And he would have been greatly surprised to be told that it was as easy to obey the command, "Believe what I tell you," as the command " Don't celebrate mass any more." I remember a pregnant remark of Cardinal Newman's to myself at the time of Dr. Dollinger's excommunication, of which be disapproved, though accepting the dogma himself. "There are some," he said, " who think that it is as easy to believe as to obey; that is to say, they do not understand what faith really means." To obey the sentence of excommunication was in no sense a moral difficulty to Dr. Dollinger. He believed it unjust and therefore invalid, and he considered himself under no obligation in foro conscientice to obey it. He did not believe that it cut him off from membership with the Church of Rome; and he once resented in a letter to me an expression which implied that he had ceased to be a member of the Roman Communion. He submitted to the sentence of excommunication as a matter of discipline, a cross which he was providentially ordained to bear. It involved nothing more serious than personal sacrifice — submission to a wrong arbitrarily inflicted by an authority to which obedience was due where conscience did not forbid. "Believe what I tell you" was a very different command, and could only be obeyed when the intellect could conscientiously accept the proposition. To bid him believe not only as an article of faith but as an historical fact what he firmly believed to be an historical fiction was to him an outrage on his intellectual integrity. For let it be remembered that the Vatican decree defines the dogma of papal infallibility not merely as part of the contents of divine revelation, but, in addition, as a fact of history "received from the beginning of the Christian faith." It challenged the ordeal of historical criticism, and made thus an appeal to enlightened reason not less than to faith. To demand belief in a proposition that lies beyond the compass of the human understanding is one thing. It is quite another matter to demand belief in a statement the truth or falsehood of which is purely a matter of historical evidence. If Dr. D61linger had been asked to believe, on pain of excommunication, that Charles I. beheaded Oliver Cromwell, the able writer in the Spectator would readily understand how easy submission to an unjust excommunication would have been in comparison with obedience to such a command. But to Dr. DOllinger's mind the proposition that Charles I. beheaded Oliver Cromwell would not be a bit more preposterous, not a bit more in the teeth of historical evidence, than the proposition that "from the beginning of the Christian faith," it was an accepted article of the creed of Christendom that when the Roman pontiff speaks to the Church ex cathedrd on faith or morals, his utterances are infallible, and "are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church." He was firmly convinced of the contradictory of that proposition, and while he remained of that mind how could he have honestly professed his acceptance of the dogma? The appeal was not to his faith, but to his reason. It was, as he said himself, like asking him to believe that two and two make five.
http://books.google.com/books?id=EgwuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44&dq=Hefele+Vatican+infallibility&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Hefele%20Vatican%20infallibility&f=false
those who denied the Trinity before Nicea I denied Him after, and those who believed in the Trinity before believed in Him during and after Nicea I.
you will reject Papal Infallibility
no, you won't accept papal infallibility.  Another a key yet subtle difference.
Not accepting and rejecting are the same thing. Here we go with your semantic games again. Undecided
no, it is not the same thing. A key yet subtle difference. And here we go with your sematnic games on that again.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 04:52:18 PM 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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #97 on: August 05, 2011, 04:59:31 PM »

no, it is not the same thing. A key yet subtle difference. And here we go with your sematnic games on that again.
No...the distinction I raised was a legitimate one: "orthodoxy" means correct belief, "Orthodoxy" refers either to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Communion.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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 #98 on: August 05, 2011, 05:02:02 PM »

no, it is not the same thing. A key yet subtle difference. And here we go with your sematnic games on that again.
No...the distinction I raised was a legitimate one: "orthodoxy" means correct belief, "Orthodoxy" refers either to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Communion.
Orthodoxy is correct belief.
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 #99 on: August 05, 2011, 05:05:03 PM »

no, it is not the same thing. A key yet subtle difference. And here we go with your sematnic games on that again.
No...the distinction I raised was a legitimate one: "orthodoxy" means correct belief, "Orthodoxy" refers either to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Communion.
Orthodoxy is correct belief.
So you believe, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I don't believe that orthodoxy can only be found within Orthodoxy. Let me put it to you this way, I don't mind when Protestants recite the Apostles' Creed and say they believe in the holy catholic church because it is often written as catholic with a small "c" which is not referring to the Roman Catholic Communion.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 05:06:27 PM by Wyatt » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #100 on: August 05, 2011, 07:44:06 PM »

Based on the replies to my post, could I summerize that Papal Infallability was not always part of the faith but it is a new relevation of the RCC faith. 

In other words Pope Benedict has it, but Peter and every Pope before Vatican I never did. 

Would this be an accurate understanding?

Absolutely...if you are Orthodox...or protestant!!
or a historian, or an honest follower of the Vatican who has passed on the Kool Aid.

Why should any Catholic listen to you with respect to history?  You dice it and slice it to suit yourself.  Even your own co-religionists often call you on your historicity.

And you would not know an honest follower of Catholic teaching if you fell over them...and I don't mean Orthodox Catholic teaching, either.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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 #101 on: August 05, 2011, 08:02:01 PM »

Based on the replies to my post, could I summerize that Papal Infallability was not always part of the faith but it is a new relevation of the RCC faith. 

In other words Pope Benedict has it, but Peter and every Pope before Vatican I never did. 

Would this be an accurate understanding?

Absolutely...if you are Orthodox...or protestant!!
or a historian, or an honest follower of the Vatican who has passed on the Kool Aid.

Why should any Catholic listen to you with respect to history?  You dice it and slice it to suit yourself.

The history of Hefele and Dollinger say all that needs to be said.

Vatican I didn't happen in the Dark Ages, but in the full light of history.  There is more than enough evidence of a major shift in 1870 in Vatican teaching, which many (i.e. the "Old Catholics") didn't go along with.

Even your own co-religionists often call you on your historicity.
and name one who pwnd me.

And you would not know an honest follower of Catholic teaching if you fell over them
how would you know?

..and I don't mean Orthodox Catholic teaching, either.
I can tell the difference between a Catholic and a heretic.
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
*****************
Online Online

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 #102 on: August 05, 2011, 08:05:17 PM »

no, it is not the same thing. A key yet subtle difference. And here we go with your sematnic games on that again.
No...the distinction I raised was a legitimate one: "orthodoxy" means correct belief, "Orthodoxy" refers either to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Communion.
Orthodoxy is correct belief.
So you believe, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I don't believe that orthodoxy can only be found within Orthodoxy. Let me put it to you this way, I don't mind when Protestants recite the Apostles' Creed and say they believe in the holy catholic church because it is often written as catholic with a small "c" which is not referring to the Roman Catholic Communion.
that's between you and your Protestant siblings, neither of you being universal.

How you feel about Protestants refering to themselves as "Christians" opposed to the "Catholics."
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 #103 on: August 05, 2011, 08:15:29 PM »

no, it is not the same thing. A key yet subtle difference. And here we go with your sematnic games on that again.
No...the distinction I raised was a legitimate one: "orthodoxy" means correct belief, "Orthodoxy" refers either to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Communion.
Orthodoxy is correct belief.
So you believe, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I don't believe that orthodoxy can only be found within Orthodoxy. Let me put it to you this way, I don't mind when Protestants recite the Apostles' Creed and say they believe in the holy catholic church because it is often written as catholic with a small "c" which is not referring to the Roman Catholic Communion.
that's between you and your Protestant siblings, neither of you being universal.

How you feel about Protestants refering to themselves as "Christians" opposed to the "Catholics."
They can call themselves whatever they wish as long as they don't try to tell me that I'm not a Christian for being Catholic.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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 #104 on: August 05, 2011, 08:23:42 PM »

no, it is not the same thing. A key yet subtle difference. And here we go with your sematnic games on that again.
No...the distinction I raised was a legitimate one: "orthodoxy" means correct belief, "Orthodoxy" refers either to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Communion.
Orthodoxy is correct belief.
So you believe, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I don't believe that orthodoxy can only be found within Orthodoxy. Let me put it to you this way, I don't mind when Protestants recite the Apostles' Creed and say they believe in the holy catholic church because it is often written as catholic with a small "c" which is not referring to the Roman Catholic Communion.
that's between you and your Protestant siblings, neither of you being universal.

How you feel about Protestants refering to themselves as "Christians" opposed to the "Catholics."
They can call themselves whatever they wish as long as they don't try to tell me that I'm not a Christian for being Catholic.
LOL. Isn't telling you Ultramontanists that you are not Christian because of your adherence to your "magisterium" (something even I wouldn't say)at the core of that Protestantism?
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
*****************
Online Online

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 #105 on: August 05, 2011, 08:29:05 PM »

Just for EM
Quote
Karl Josef von Hefele (March 15, 1809 - June 6, 1893) was a German theologian. He was born at Unterkochen in Württemberg, and was educated at Tübingen where in 1839 he became professor-ordinary of Church history and patristics in the Roman Catholic faculty of theology.

From 1842 to 1845 he sat in the National Assembly of Württemberg. In December 1869 he was enthroned bishop of Rottenburg. His literary activity, which had been considerable, was in no way diminished by his elevation to the episcopate. Among his numerous theological works may be mentioned his well-known edition of the Apostolic Fathers, issued in 1839; his Life of Cardinal Ximenes, published in 1844 (Eng. trans., 1860); and his still more celebrated Conciliengeschichte (History of the Councils of the Church), in seven volumes, which appeared between 1855 and 1874 (Eng. trans., 1871, 1882).

Hefele's theological opinions inclined towards the more liberal school in the Roman Catholic Church, but he nevertheless received considerable signs of favour from its authorities, and was a member of the commission that made preparations for the Vatican Council of 1870. On the eve of that council he published at Naples his Causa Honorii Papae, which aimed at demonstrating the moral and historical impossibility of papal infallibility. About the same time he brought out a work in German on the same subject. He took rather a prominent part in the discussions at the council, associating himself with Félix Dupanloup and with Georges Darboy, archbishop of Paris, in his opposition to the doctrine of Infallibility, and supporting their arguments from his vast knowledge of ecclesiastical history. In the preliminary discussions he voted against the promulgation of the dogma. He was absent from the important sitting of June 18, 1870, and did not send in his submission to the decrees until 1871, when he explained in a pastoral letter that the dogma "referred only to doctrine given forth ex cathedra, and therein to the definitions proper only, but not to its proofs or explanations."[attribution needed]

In 1872 he took part in the congress summoned by the Ultramontanes at Fulda, and by his judicious use of minimizing tactics he kept his diocese free from any participation in the Old Catholic schism. The last four volumes of the second edition of his History of the Councils have been described as skillfully adapted to the new situation created by the Vatican decrees. During the later years of his life he undertook no further literary efforts on behalf of his church, but retired into comparative privacy.

He died in Rottenburg am Neckar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Josef_von_Hefele
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 #106 on: August 05, 2011, 08:30:51 PM »

[soze=10pt]
The last time ex cathedra was used, was to proclaim the Roman Catholic doctrine on the Immaculate Conception, which happened in 1950. [/size]


By what right do you say that the Immaculate Conception has been proclaimed as infallible?   What Pope has made a formal declaration of its infallibility? 

People assume that because it was the first major papal proclamation after the Roman Catholic bishops voted that the Pope was infallible that this is an infallible proclamation.    They are wrong!

Some people will play games and point to the phrasing of the definition and they claim this is its indicator of infallibility.  What a load of tosh!


We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary,
at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God,
in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain
of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by
all the faithful.

—Pope Pius IX, "Ineffabilis Deus", December 8, 1854

If that We declare, pronounce and define were the magic words activating infallibility then we can find several dozen infallible statements from several Popes.  There is, for example, Pope Boniface's infallible statement sending to hell all these not in subjection to himself!!


We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church,
and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there
is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one.
One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:.Cool; which represents the
one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism'
(Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to
one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed…
We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human
creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

—Pope Boniface VIII, "Unam sanctam", 1302)
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #107 on: August 05, 2011, 08:45:26 PM »

Truth be told the term "papal infallibility" can be misleading. "Ex cathedra infallibility" would be more precise (but cumbersome).

Do you mean that anything he states while sitting in his papal chair is infallibile??!

I have never heard that as part of traditional Catholicism.

Hey don't make me come over there!  Grin

But seriously, when we say a statement is "ex cathedra" = "from the chair" it doesn't have anything to do with the pope's physical location. (Also, when we speaks of pontiffs, we aren't talking about bridge-building.)

Then you need to explain the official difference between "papal infallibility" and "ex cathedra infallibility."

But if it is anything like the specious argument you used in an attempt to fudge Keenan's Catechism, don't bother.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #108 on: August 05, 2011, 08:46:30 PM »

no, it is not the same thing. A key yet subtle difference. And here we go with your sematnic games on that again.
No...the distinction I raised was a legitimate one: "orthodoxy" means correct belief, "Orthodoxy" refers either to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Communion.
Orthodoxy is correct belief.
So you believe, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I don't believe that orthodoxy can only be found within Orthodoxy. Let me put it to you this way, I don't mind when Protestants recite the Apostles' Creed and say they believe in the holy catholic church because it is often written as catholic with a small "c" which is not referring to the Roman Catholic Communion.
that's between you and your Protestant siblings, neither of you being universal.

How you feel about Protestants refering to themselves as "Christians" opposed to the "Catholics."
They can call themselves whatever they wish as long as they don't try to tell me that I'm not a Christian for being Catholic.
LOL. Isn't telling you Ultramontanists that you are not Christian because of your adherence to your "magisterium" (something even I wouldn't say)at the core of that Protestantism?
LOLOLOL. No. I know plenty of Protestants that are okay with my being Catholic. It's mainly the hardcore evangelical/fundamentalist types that say we aren't Christians. By the way, they would likely say that you aren't Christian either since you don't believe that the Bible is the final authority and only source of truth. In their eyes, you're chasing after the same traditions of men that they accuse us of following.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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 #109 on: August 05, 2011, 09:02:12 PM »

no, it is not the same thing. A key yet subtle difference. And here we go with your sematnic games on that again.
No...the distinction I raised was a legitimate one: "orthodoxy" means correct belief, "Orthodoxy" refers either to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Communion.
Orthodoxy is correct belief.
So you believe, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I don't believe that orthodoxy can only be found within Orthodoxy. Let me put it to you this way, I don't mind when Protestants recite the Apostles' Creed and say they believe in the holy catholic church because it is often written as catholic with a small "c" which is not referring to the Roman Catholic Communion.
that's between you and your Protestant siblings, neither of you being universal.

How you feel about Protestants refering to themselves as "Christians" opposed to the "Catholics."
They can call themselves whatever they wish as long as they don't try to tell me that I'm not a Christian for being Catholic.
LOL. Isn't telling you Ultramontanists that you are not Christian because of your adherence to your "magisterium" (something even I wouldn't say)at the core of that Protestantism?
LOLOLOL. No. I know plenty of Protestants that are okay with my being Catholic. It's mainly the hardcore evangelical/fundamentalist types that say we aren't Christians. By the way, they would likely say that you aren't Christian either since you don't believe that the Bible is the final authority and only source of truth. In their eyes, you're chasing after the same traditions of men that they accuse us of following.
And my ears are deaf to such nonsense.  Btw, many of them are just borderline Chrisians, or not even, as their "baptism" cannot be accepted by the most liberal application of economia (e.g. Oneness Pentacostals).
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 #110 on: August 05, 2011, 09:04:39 PM »

no, it is not the same thing. A key yet subtle difference. And here we go with your sematnic games on that again.
No...the distinction I raised was a legitimate one: "orthodoxy" means correct belief, "Orthodoxy" refers either to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Communion.
Orthodoxy is correct belief.
So you believe, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I don't believe that orthodoxy can only be found within Orthodoxy. Let me put it to you this way, I don't mind when Protestants recite the Apostles' Creed and say they believe in the holy catholic church because it is often written as catholic with a small "c" which is not referring to the Roman Catholic Communion.
that's between you and your Protestant siblings, neither of you being universal.

How you feel about Protestants refering to themselves as "Christians" opposed to the "Catholics."
They can call themselves whatever they wish as long as they don't try to tell me that I'm not a Christian for being Catholic.
LOL. Isn't telling you Ultramontanists that you are not Christian because of your adherence to your "magisterium" (something even I wouldn't say)at the core of that Protestantism?
LOLOLOL. No. I know plenty of Protestants that are okay with my being Catholic. It's mainly the hardcore evangelical/fundamentalist types that say we aren't Christians. By the way, they would likely say that you aren't Christian either since you don't believe that the Bible is the final authority and only source of truth. In their eyes, you're chasing after the same traditions of men that they accuse us of following.
And my ears are deaf to such nonsense.  Btw, many of them are just borderline Chrisians, or not even, as their "baptism" cannot be accepted by the most liberal application of economia (e.g. Oneness Pentacostals).
Do you think God would spare them for their ignorance, or are they damned?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #111 on: August 05, 2011, 09:24:39 PM »

Truth be told the term "papal infallibility" can be misleading. "Ex cathedra infallibility" would be more precise (but cumbersome).

Do you mean that anything he states while sitting in his papal chair is infallibile??!

I have never heard that as part of traditional Catholicism.

Hey don't make me come over there!  Grin

But seriously, when we say a statement is "ex cathedra" = "from the chair" it doesn't have anything to do with the pope's physical location. (Also, when we speaks of pontiffs, we aren't talking about bridge-building.)

Then you need to explain the official difference between "papal infallibility" and "ex cathedra infallibility."

Not really a difference, but I think the latter is clearer.

Bottom line, the pope isn't automatically infallible every time he makes a statement on faith and morals, but he is infallible every time he makes an ex cathedra statement.

But if it is anything like the specious argument you used in an attempt to fudge Keenan's Catechism, don't bother.

Oh, it's no bother. Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #112 on: August 05, 2011, 09:39:11 PM »

[soze=10pt]
The last time ex cathedra was used, was to proclaim the Roman Catholic doctrine on the Immaculate Conception, which happened in 1950. [/size]


By what right do you say that the Immaculate Conception has been proclaimed as infallible?   What Pope has made a formal declaration of its infallibility?  

I'm pretty sure that no Pope has made a formal declaration that it was an ex cathedra (and hence infallible) statement. That's fine by me.

People assume that because it was the first major papal proclamation after the Roman Catholic bishops voted that the Pope was infallible that this is an infallible proclamation.    They are wrong!

At the risk of sounding like the proverbial "know it all", you and biro are both mixing up 1854 and 1950.

Some people will play games and point to the phrasing of the definition and they claim this is its indicator of infallibility.  What a load of tosh!

Technically I agree with you: the words "We declare, pronounce and define that ... " are not an absolute guarantee of an ex cathedra statement. But they are, I guess I would say, a strong indicator of an ex cathedra statement.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 10:01:38 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,073


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #113 on: August 05, 2011, 09:40:22 PM »

Quote from: elijahmaria
Even your own co-religionists often call you on your historicity.
Quote from: ialmisry
and name one who pwnd me.

I'll give you two. Heorhij and Ozgeorge. Heorhij called you out for your "half-baked history" screeds that run for pages and pages, and the ridiculous maps. Ozgeorge slammed you on your numerous grammatical mistakes in one paragraph, particularly sad because you say you're a teacher. And Ozgeorge did it in Greek.

 Cheesy

I won't count the times I reported your gratuitous Hitler smears, because you're usually canny enough to only post those in the little-monitored Free-for-All and private sections. Hence there's rarely a response even if one reports them. Funny how people like you and Saint_Iaint figured out how to 'hide in plain sight' that way, and avoid getting warnings unless you forget to, oh, fix up your quote box when you post an article.  Roll Eyes

If I did count that, it would bring the total to three. Of course, since you are the board's Orthodox equivalent of Alfred Persson, it's not going to matter, because you'll just say something snarky, ignore the facts, and declare yourself the winner again.

And once again, nobody outside of your little cult of fanboys will be surprised.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 09:42:28 PM by biro » 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/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #114 on: August 05, 2011, 09:41:35 PM »

Truth be told the term "papal infallibility" can be misleading. "Ex cathedra infallibility" would be more precise (but cumbersome).

Do you mean that anything he states while sitting in his papal chair is infallibile??!

I have never heard that as part of traditional Catholicism.

Hey don't make me come over there!  Grin

But seriously, when we say a statement is "ex cathedra" = "from the chair" it doesn't have anything to do with the pope's physical location. (Also, when we speaks of pontiffs, we aren't talking about bridge-building.)

Then you need to explain the official difference between "papal infallibility" and "ex cathedra infallibility."

Not really a difference, but I think the latter is clearer.

Bottom line, the pope isn't automatically infallible every time he makes a statement on faith and morals, but he is infallible every time he makes an ex cathedra statement.


Lumen Gentium is quite specific in its demand that the Catholic faithful must submit in mind and will to the teaching of the Pope even when acting only in his ordinary magisterium.  This at least is a clear statement of your Church's teaching.

"Ex cathedra" statements on the other hand are nothing but guess work and not even the great Catholic theologans agree on them.  Nobody knows when they occur.  I notice that you cannot provide a definition.  In other words any claims for "ex cathedra" are meaningless.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,073


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #115 on: August 05, 2011, 09:44:48 PM »

Quote from: Wyatt
Must you always say everything in the most mocking, insensitive way possible?

Yes. He must. That's his shtik.

 Roll Eyes

He doesn't have any other cards in the deck. What does he have to talk about, if he can't constantly harangue people about the RCC Pope? He'd have to post about the weather.  police
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/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #116 on: August 05, 2011, 09:48:53 PM »

Technically I agree with you: the words "We declare, pronounce and define that ... " are not an absolute guarantee of a ex cathedra statement. But they are, I guess I would say, a strong indicator of a ex cathedra statement.

The extraordinary state of "Ex Cathedra" Statements - nobody has a clue how many there are!!

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 sure about four of them.)

The even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott says there are...................................... SIXTY.


I remember that Karl Keating, the head of CAF, had his own figure for infallible statements, but I cannot remember what it was. 

So what is infallible and ex cathedra for the Catholic Church is guess work.

Lots of confusion in the Catholic world.  What is infallible for one Catholic is not infallible for the next.

--------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Ott
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,073


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #117 on: August 05, 2011, 09:54:20 PM »

"Famous" usually means "I picked him because he agrees with my point of view, even though your average Roman Catholic probably doesn't read him or know who he is."

Let's also ignore what I posted before, about what the current Pope says on the subject. I'll let you waste your time looking for it.

You are constantly trying to pin all the Roman Catholics in the world to every book anyone has ever written on anything. Despite the fact that you play this game, their church continues to have four times as many people as yours.

Funny how that works out.
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/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #118 on: August 05, 2011, 10:05:41 PM »


Lumen Gentium is quite specific in its demand that the Catholic faithful must submit in mind and will to the teaching of the Pope even when acting only in his ordinary magisterium.  This at least is a clear statement of your Church's teaching.

Obviously it wouldn't make much sense to restrict submission of the will and assent of faith to the 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 "creeping infallibility" may be acceptable to Roman Catholics, it is highly unlikely that Melkite Catholics and the other 21 Catholic Churches accept this from Vatican II.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,268



« Reply #119 on: August 05, 2011, 10:21:41 PM »

Quote from: Wyatt
Must you always say everything in the most mocking, insensitive way possible?

Yes. He must. That's his shtik.

 Roll Eyes

He doesn't have any other cards in the deck. What does he have to talk about, if he can't constantly harangue people about the RCC Pope? He'd have to post about the weather.  police
Aren't you coming into Orthodoxy soon? You'll be sharing the same Chalice as Isa and the rest of us terrible people. Perhaps you and Wyatt could take your mockery party elsewhere?  Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #120 on: August 05, 2011, 10:31:20 PM »


He doesn't have any other cards in the deck. What does he have to talk about, if he can't constantly harangue people about the RCC Pope? He'd have to post about the weather.  police

Biro..... if you just look at the topic of this thread "Question on the Pope -- Isa is on topic.

And to be unusually blunt the office of the Papacy is, in Orthodox understanding, the largest con job ever foisted on such a large number of Christians by the Devil.  It is far worse than even the errors of Protestantism!  The Papacy must be destroyed before the Orthodox would restore communion with the faithful of Rome.

Remember the chapters in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov about the Grand Inquisitor?
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 10:33:25 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: August 05, 2011, 10:33:26 PM »


We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human
creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
[/i]
—Pope Boniface VIII, "Unam sanctam", 1302)


That is quite right.  As far as one understands the papal office as being the "voice" of Jesus on earth, then in as much as ALL creation is subject to Jesus the Christ, then the Body of Christ and her earthly head holds dominion over all human beings in matters of faith and morals.

And that is a protected truth and the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #122 on: August 05, 2011, 10:35:05 PM »


He doesn't have any other cards in the deck. What does he have to talk about, if he can't constantly harangue people about the RCC Pope? He'd have to post about the weather.  police

Biro..... if you just look at the topic of this thread "Question on the Pope -- Isa is on topic.

And to be unusually blunt the office of the Papacy is, in Orthodox understanding, the largest con job ever foisted on such a large number of Christians by the Devil.  It is far worse than even the errors of Protestantism!  The Papacy must be destroyed before the Orthodox would restore communion with the faithful of Rome.

Remember the chapters in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov about the Grand Inquisitor?

This is just hysterical nonsense.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #123 on: August 05, 2011, 10:37:40 PM »

"Famous" usually means "I picked him because he agrees with my point of view, even though your average Roman Catholic probably doesn't read him or know who he is."

Let's also ignore what I posted before, about what the current Pope says on the subject. I'll let you waste your time looking for it.

You are constantly trying to pin all the Roman Catholics in the world to every book anyone has ever written on anything. Despite the fact that you play this game, their church continues to have four times as many people as yours.

Funny how that works out.

Not funny at all.  There is something to it and by all real reports...Isa and Father A notwithstanding...Orthodoxy is shrinking as it moves into the 21st century. 
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #124 on: August 05, 2011, 10:45:04 PM »

. Despite the fact that you play this game, their church continues to have four times as many people as yours.

Funny how that works out.


Your Church massages its statistics be claiming as a member everyone who was baptized, no matter if he went on in life to be the head of the Global Atheist Union.

We work our statistics by counting how many people fulfil their Easter obligation - a more sure statistic.


One third of your membership is located in South America - "nominals" by and large.

Take out the South Americans and your statistics are getting close to the Orthodox.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #125 on: August 05, 2011, 10:51:08 PM »


He doesn't have any other cards in the deck. What does he have to talk about, if he can't constantly harangue people about the RCC Pope? He'd have to post about the weather.  police

Biro..... if you just look at the topic of this thread "Question on the Pope -- Isa is on topic.

And to be unusually blunt the office of the Papacy is, in Orthodox understanding, the largest con job ever foisted on such a large number of Christians by the Devil.  It is far worse than even the errors of Protestantism!  The Papacy must be destroyed before the Orthodox would restore communion with the faithful of Rome.

Remember the chapters in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov about the Grand Inquisitor?

This is just hysterical nonsense.

Ah, a raw nerve!!   How can you say that?  It is your statement which has an air of hysteria.  The ecumenical doyen of the Russian Orthodox Church has stressed time and again at Catholic-Orthodox Meetings that there is not and never will be a primacy on the global level.  In other words the Papacy must go before we can contemplate union.  Or do you see Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev as just an hysterical girl?  Have you been asleep these last few years as the International Dialogue has discussed papal primacy?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #126 on: August 05, 2011, 10:52:32 PM »

"Famous" usually means "I picked him because he agrees with my point of view, even though your average Roman Catholic probably doesn't read him or know who he is."

Let's also ignore what I posted before, about what the current Pope says on the subject. I'll let you waste your time looking for it.

You are constantly trying to pin all the Roman Catholics in the world to every book anyone has ever written on anything. Despite the fact that you play this game, their church continues to have four times as many people as yours.

Funny how that works out.

Not funny at all.  There is something to it and by all real reports...Isa and Father A notwithstanding...Orthodoxy is shrinking as it moves into the 21st century. 

Money where mouth is?  In which countries is it shrinking?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #127 on: August 05, 2011, 10:57:44 PM »


We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human
creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
[/i]
—Pope Boniface VIII, "Unam sanctam", 1302)


That is quite right.  As far as one understands the papal office as being the "voice" of Jesus on earth, then in as much as ALL creation is subject to Jesus the Christ, then the Body of Christ and her earthly head holds dominion over all human beings in matters of faith and morals.

And that is a protected truth and the gates of hell shall not prevail.



So the pigmies in Borneo are subject to the Pope of Rome?  as well as the Orthodox in Moscow?  It's just that they don't realise their subjection to the Roman Pontiff but he will accomplish their salvation all the same.  Three cheers for the magical powers of His Holiness, Salvator mundi!
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #128 on: August 05, 2011, 11:12:05 PM »

Despite the fact that you play this game, their church continues to have four times as many people as yours.

Funny how that works out.

WTF difference does that make? The Orthodox Church could have four people in it—total—and that wouldn't change its truthfulness.  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 11:13:22 PM by bogdan » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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 #129 on: August 05, 2011, 11:14:24 PM »

no, it is not the same thing. A key yet subtle difference. And here we go with your sematnic games on that again.
No...the distinction I raised was a legitimate one: "orthodoxy" means correct belief, "Orthodoxy" refers either to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Communion.
Orthodoxy is correct belief.
So you believe, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I don't believe that orthodoxy can only be found within Orthodoxy. Let me put it to you this way, I don't mind when Protestants recite the Apostles' Creed and say they believe in the holy catholic church because it is often written as catholic with a small "c" which is not referring to the Roman Catholic Communion.
that's between you and your Protestant siblings, neither of you being universal.

How you feel about Protestants refering to themselves as "Christians" opposed to the "Catholics."
They can call themselves whatever they wish as long as they don't try to tell me that I'm not a Christian for being Catholic.
LOL. Isn't telling you Ultramontanists that you are not Christian because of your adherence to your "magisterium" (something even I wouldn't say)at the core of that Protestantism?
LOLOLOL. No. I know plenty of Protestants that are okay with my being Catholic. It's mainly the hardcore evangelical/fundamentalist types that say we aren't Christians. By the way, they would likely say that you aren't Christian either since you don't believe that the Bible is the final authority and only source of truth. In their eyes, you're chasing after the same traditions of men that they accuse us of following.
And my ears are deaf to such nonsense.  Btw, many of them are just borderline Chrisians, or not even, as their "baptism" cannot be accepted by the most liberal application of economia (e.g. Oneness Pentacostals).
Do you think God would spare them for their ignorance, or are they damned?
The Lord's hand is not shortened that He cannot save. Besides, they have the Orthodox Catholics to pray for them.
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 #130 on: August 05, 2011, 11:23:07 PM »

Do you think God would spare them for their ignorance, or are they damned?
The Lord's hand is not shortened that He cannot save. Besides, they have the Orthodox Catholics to pray for them.

There must be a dozen threads on this forum about the salvation of those who are not members of the Church.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #131 on: August 05, 2011, 11:29:01 PM »


He doesn't have any other cards in the deck. What does he have to talk about, if he can't constantly harangue people about the RCC Pope? He'd have to post about the weather.  police

Biro..... if you just look at the topic of this thread "Question on the Pope -- Isa is on topic.

And to be unusually blunt the office of the Papacy is, in Orthodox understanding, the largest con job ever foisted on such a large number of Christians by the Devil.  It is far worse than even the errors of Protestantism!  The Papacy must be destroyed before the Orthodox would restore communion with the faithful of Rome.

Remember the chapters in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov about the Grand Inquisitor?

This is just hysterical nonsense.

Ah, a raw nerve!!   How can you say that?  It is your statement which has an air of hysteria.  The ecumenical doyen of the Russian Orthodox Church has stressed time and again at Catholic-Orthodox Meetings that there is not and never will be a primacy on the global level.  In other words the Papacy must go before we can contemplate union.  Or do you see Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev as just an hysterical girl?  Have you been asleep these last few years as the International Dialogue has discussed papal primacy?

When you say:
"the office of the Papacy is, in Orthodox understanding, the largest con job ever foisted on such a large number of Christians by the Devil"
that definitely smacks of hysteria.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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 #132 on: August 05, 2011, 11:32:22 PM »

Quote from: elijahmaria
Even your own co-religionists often call you on your historicity.
Quote from: ialmisry
and name one who pwnd me.

I'll give you two. Heorhij and Ozgeorge. Heorhij called you out for your "half-baked history" screeds that run for pages and pages, and the ridiculous maps.
Heorhij called it "half-baked" because he couldn't prove it wasn't fully baked, and hated the maps because that visually proved, that, e.g. the genetics map that showed that the Russians, that he kept on insisting were really Finns (not dealing with the issue that the genetic studies of the Rurikids showed that his genes were Finnish, while his language was Swedish), actually shared the same genetic makeup.

Ozgeorge slammed you on your numerous grammatical mistakes in one paragraph, particularly sad because you say you're a teacher.

Yes, I notice that the more an argument is unassailable, the more whose ox is being gored becomes a grammar/spelling nazi.  Btw, I teach Arabic (where my spelling is perfect) and History (where I use the spell check).

And Ozgeorge did it in Greek.
Ya'll have to link to that one, as either I missed it or don't remember that.

 
Cheesy
Cheesy
I won't count the times I reported your gratuitous Hitler smears, because you're usually canny enough to only post those in the little-monitored Free-for-All and private sections. Hence there's rarely a response even if one reports them.
Funny, people can post responses, there being little monitoring in those arenas.

Funny how people like you and Saint_Iaint figured out how to 'hide in plain sight' that way, and avoid getting warnings unless you forget to, oh, fix up your quote box when you post an article.  Roll Eyes
Hiding? I'm not hiding anything. Or anywhere.

As a rule, I don't contest warnings, as mods get enough grief, and life is short.  I think I've disputed 3, 2 of which were ruled in my favor.  Otherwise I take it as penance.

If I did count that, it would bring the total to three. Of course, since you are the board's Orthodox equivalent of Alfred Persson, it's not going to matter, because you'll just say something snarky, ignore the facts, and declare yourself the winner again.
I wasn't aware I was in a contest. What have I won?

And once again, nobody outside of your little cult of fanboys will be surprised.
I have a cult?  Cool.
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
*****************
Online Online

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 #133 on: August 05, 2011, 11:34:30 PM »

Quote from: Wyatt
Must you always say everything in the most mocking, insensitive way possible?

Yes. He must. That's his shtik.

 Roll Eyes

He doesn't have any other cards in the deck. What does he have to talk about, if he can't constantly harangue people about the RCC Pope? He'd have to post about the weather.  police
I see that Fr. Ambrose has done me the favor of relieving me of the need of a response. Thanks, Fr. A.
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 #134 on: August 05, 2011, 11:41:37 PM »

And to be unusually blunt the office of the Papacy is, in Orthodox understanding, the largest con job ever foisted on such a large number of Christians by the Devil.
Wow...so I can get in trouble just by someone assuming that I'm insulting Eastern Orthodox Bishops (which I wasn't), but you can essentially call the Pope a tool of Satan and that's totally fine. Unbelievable.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   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 0.212 seconds with 73 queries.