OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 07:56:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Excellent Article on First Vatican Council  (Read 1769 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« on: August 19, 2004, 12:35:07 PM »

Here is an excellent article on the first Vatican Council.  What is most interesting about the article, is that it illustrates how an utterly Papal-centric doctrine of the "church" did not have it's final victory in the west until relatively recently - and I would submit, perhaps explains why the most incredible degredations, defections, and apostacy of the Latin church have also not occured until relatively recently.

The Vatican Dogma by Fr.Sergius Bulgakov.

It's a fairly long article, but definately worth reading.  It repeats many things I've read elsewhere about the scheming that went on (on the part of the ultramontane) at the time of Vatican Council I.  I also think it goes a long way in explaining what happened (both rightly and wrongly) at Vatican Council II (imho - the "Vatican II Popes" realize their predecessors have painted them into a corner, and want to free themselves of this, but without actually having to repent of anything consequential.)

Edited only to fix link.

MorE
« Last Edit: August 19, 2004, 07:19:58 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2004, 02:32:17 PM »

Yes, it is, especially coming from Bulgakov, who was hardly someone you could characterize easily as an Orthodox traditionalist/hardliner.
Logged

B
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2004, 02:54:33 PM »

Dear Augustine,

 I also think it goes a long way in explaining what happened (both rightly and wrongly) at Vatican Council II (imho - the "Vatican II Popes" realize their predecessors have painted them into a corner, and want to free themselves of this, but without actually having to repent of anything consequential.)

I must say, that is about as clear as one could put it in a just a few sentences.

Perhaps you should consider writing a book?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Logged
pilgrim727
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


OC.net


« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2004, 06:48:42 PM »

Since the link was not intact in the post, I looked it up and pasted it into my word processor to read later.

From what I have read so far in other sources, many even in the hierarchy of the Roman church were against the dogma of papal infallibility before and during the council,  but few spoke up afterwards.  --- This seems to me much like what has been happening in our day with other issues:  communion in the hand and altar girls being obvious examples.  And now there are Hindus and Buddhists saying their pagan prayers at the altars of Roman Catholic churches, and very few of the faithful and perhaps none of the bishops care in the least about such atrocities.

Porter
Logged

NULL
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2004, 11:49:15 PM »

HIndus and Bhudist at Catholic Altars? Please elaborate.

After 9/11 ...when I was still RC we had a muslim Imam come to our RC parish to give a talk.....but it was in the gym. I wondered why there was police protection for the event...byt by the end of the talk I could understand why......a number of us RC men who happened to be vets and were also pretty well versed in history and the Koran ... did not let him get away with spouting that "Islam is a religion of peace" nonsense...we were prepared and read Koranic passgaes deatailing the violence inherit in that faith. We were pretty calm...but you could tell the Imam felt threatened......less than two years later that same Imam has fled the country...turned out he was part of a charity with some shady connections.

After that event the Parish priest who organized the "talk" chastised us for being "impolite" to he guest...all we were doing was reading Koranic passages and esking him to explain how he could say theirs was a religion of peace....he never did answer us directly....this was just one more staw on the camel's back for me...a RC priest more concerned with seeming polite and politically correct  than speaking up for the truth.
Logged
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2004, 01:25:09 AM »

Dear Augustine,

The article by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov is very objective, thanks for sharing it with us.
I'm left with the same understanding which seems to always move me in the direction of seeing so many contradictions and knowing that explanations are given or will be issued to attempt to remove the contradictions, yet the contradictions remain irrespective of the words that are used to try to reconfigure them. If one adopts that thinking one is in a constant mode of explanation that seemingly won't end. I sincerely can't understand the thinking.

As you may know, the Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian) are now in communion with Rome. I have conversed with a very learned thinker from that tradition at great length, I have known him for 15 years. He is comfortable mentioning that he is Orthodox. They hold many views that are not consistent with Roman Catholic theology, in fact his whole Church does as I'm sure you know. It appears that they are in communion with Rome for reasons that fall outside the realm of theological compatibility. It seems to me we can deduce from that unity with Rome means something much different than the Orthodox understanding of it.

My question is this and I know that there are some here that are Roman Catholic, how do you go about accepting theological contradictions? I do not mean that to be understood as offensive or taken as being uncharitable, I'm just wondering how you do it. Perhaps Spartacus could help me out here a bit because it really bothers me sometimes. Is it just accepting what Rome teaches and even if one thinks that something may not make much sense? I have a friend who is now Orthodox, he is sincere and truthful for he has suffered much by becoming Orthodox. He mentioned that you more or less come up with answers opposing arguments drawn from all sorts of sources, it that your sense as well?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
« Last Edit: August 20, 2004, 01:26:54 AM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2004, 09:40:01 AM »

[a RC priest more concerned with seeming polite and politically correct than speaking up for the truth. ]

Unfortunately that seems to be the new American way.  It's more important to be polite and not offend than it is to proclaim the truth.  That's why I'm always in trouble.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2004, 11:55:14 AM »

Matthew,

Quote
My question is this and I know that there are some here that are Roman Catholic, how do you go about accepting theological contradictions? I do not mean that to be understood as offensive or taken as being uncharitable, I'm just wondering how you do it. Perhaps Spartacus could help me out here a bit because it really bothers me sometimes. Is it just accepting what Rome teaches and even if one thinks that something may not make much sense? I have a friend who is now Orthodox, he is sincere and truthful for he has suffered much by becoming Orthodox. He mentioned that you more or less come up with answers opposing arguments drawn from all sorts of sources, it that your sense as well?

It's hard to talk about Catholicism, now more than ever, because it is really so many different things as you say.

At it's extremes, it houses the Uniates, charismatic types, neo-ultramontane, Tridentine-rite traditionalists (yes, there are men who are essentially "Lefebvrist" in their outlook, but are on speaking terms with Rome: the Society of St.Peter comes to mind), humanists, and all sorts of people in between.  And these people, tend to understand what emminates from the Pope however they see fit, or underline and accentuate what suits them and either ignore or otherwise leave unexamined what does not.

This is also true of Catholicism's history, including it's recent history.  Even in the 19th century (when the dogma of "papal infallibility" was defined and the exagerated "rights" of the Pope were given their definitive, "authoratative" definition) even the more extreme innovations of the Latins were defended fundamentally under the guise that these "innovations" in doctrine and praxis were indeed apostolic.  If you carefully read Vatican Council I, it clearly portrays the Pope's infallibility as something "always believed", which is of course absurd (and I think even the most conservative RC, if he is honest and reasonably well informed, would have to qualify this alot before he could say such a thing.)  Yet born in the 19th century was the apology for Catholicism of (the convert from Anglicanism) Henry (Cardinal) Newman - the so called "development of doctrine theory", which while looked at with some suspicion by his contemporaries in the RCC (as were some of his other views), has now been embraced as a god-send by Latin apologists.  For without this "development" theory (particularly in an age of wide spread literacy and the printing press), papal innovations would not have a snow-ball's chance in hell of being taken seriously by anyone (including Roman Catholics themselves, I suspect.)

Fundamentally Catholicism (as a distinct entity, a schism from Holy Orthodoxy) is Papism - all things are reduced to obedience to the Pope (though that "obedience" word is massaged a lot by the modern Vatican, which is quite sensitive to the abhorence of post-revolutionary men to any notion of heirarchy or authority, save that which they create and consent to).  Sure, there are other basic things in the realm of thought and practice which unite the disparate persons which populate the RCC - but then again one could draw the same comparison between any of these "papal groups" and those who are not "in communion with Rome".  What does unite the RC's, ultimatly, is their papism, whether it is mercenary/pragmatic, or accepted as an edict of Heaven.

Ecclessiastical unity has, above all else, been reduced to administrative unity in Catholicism.  While obviously serious RC's would deny this, this is the reality of Catholicism.  Put in a much less flattering way, ecclessiology has been reduced to a demonstration of power; "lording it over one another"... though in today's egalitarian world (as was previously mentioned), the Vatican is careful in how it presents this.  This is not to say that it ever denies it's "God given powers" in all of this (though I often think that even the Pope himself doesn't buy into his own press...sadly, he doesn't take exception enough to correct anything either) - but now days it will not insist upon them.  This is much like how the RC - Orthodox "ecumenical dialogue" is going; the Pope is willing to "excercise his ministry in other ways", supposedly more in accord with the situation pre-1054.  What is implicit in this though, is that such a "limiting" of the Papacy is a farce; Patriarchs and Bishops would not really be such in this arrangement - they would be such only out of the Pope's benevolence.  Strictly speaking, his "rights" would remain in tact, should he want to use them in the future...

With a unity based on authority, truth cannot but become secondary (or worse.)  Obviously for someone who professes to be Orthodox ("correct opinion/glory"), that is mind boggling.

In summary, I don't think most papists feel a need to "make sense of it all", or perhaps each is allowed to continue in it's own rationalization of the situation... so long as that "adherance to Peter" is maintained.  "Choose your illusion" I suppose.

Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2004, 11:57:13 AM »

Orthodoc,

We preach the truth as each of us know it, though they are different in places.Let us be honest, at times we are cafeteria Christians, picking what we chose at that time to fit or answer a question and leaving material out, is it really the truth then ?

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2004, 03:37:25 PM »

//After 9/11 ...when I was still RC we had a muslim Imam come to our RC parish to give a talk.....but it was in the gym. I wondered why there was police protection for the event...byt by the end of the talk I could understand why......a number of us RC men who happened to be vets and were also pretty well versed in history and the Koran ... did not let him get away with spouting that "Islam is a religion of peace" nonsense...we were prepared and read Koranic passgaes deatailing the violence inherit in that faith. We were pretty calm...but you could tell the Imam felt threatened......less than two years later that same Imam has fled the country...turned out he was part of a charity with some shady connections.//

I have heard of this sort of thing happening on a few occassions where Imams when confronted on certain questionable passages in the Quran which indicate an intolerance of non-Muslims. They claim a certain tolerance for "people of the Book".  I guess they havent gotten to that part yet.  

JoeS
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,578



« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2005, 09:21:13 AM »

Quote
As you may know, the Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian) are now in communion with Rome

They are? Could someone elaborate?
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
theodore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2005, 05:02:15 PM »

In the 1500s, the Nestorian Patriarch visited Rome, and declared himselft to be Catholic, thus creating the Chaldean Catholic Church.  Those who did not follow him and stayed Nestorian are known as the Assyrian Church of the East.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.064 seconds with 39 queries.