OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 05:38:39 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Which church is more open to reuniting??  (Read 15562 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #45 on: April 03, 2012, 11:47:50 PM »


This actually goes to a fundamentally different understanding of doctrine between Orthodoxy and Rome. For Orthodoxy, the dogma of the Church was complete with the Apostles. It can be clarified in the face of heresy, translated into new language or terms, but it cannot be added to or changed .

And all Catholic theologians agree.   As John Henry Newman insisted, "the Church does not know more than the Apostles knew."

If Orthodox are going to engage the Catholic understanding of dogmatic development, then it is important for Orthodox to be able to accurately state the Catholic understanding of dogmatic development.   
We can only understand it who the Vatican's partisan's understand it.  Read Dr. Mark Miravelle on the Fifth Marian Dogma, or the apologia for Ineffibilus Deus, Pastor Aeternus or Munificentissimus Deus. One must, on the one hand, focus on their doctors of theology and their "magisterium", but on the other hand not ignore what those entrusted by the "magisterium" to teach, what they are teaching their faithful.

No, Father, all the Vatican's theologians do NOT agree.
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #46 on: April 03, 2012, 11:52:45 PM »

I was talking to a buddy of mine who grew up protestant with me and later converted to RC.  He was a lot like I currently am and took nearly 3 years to decide between the RC and the OC.  He eventually went with the RC and when I asked why, he said it was largely because they were more open to the idea of reuniting which is very important to him. (note: thats not the ONLY reason. He does think the RC church is 'right')

While acknowledging that you said it was not your friend's only reaosn for so choosing, I feel compelled to comment that the reason of his which you point to is so incredibly vapid.

It reminds me of the "most friendly parent" idea in family law -- that the parent which is least hostile to the other is supposedly to be preferred, even if the actions of that parent are the cause of the hostility.
That must be a Commonwealth thing.  In the US hostility is down right rewarded, even when it is just the hostile parent acting out their own problems.
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
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,445



WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 04, 2012, 12:04:34 AM »

Thanks former reformer - you saved me several hours of thinking and writing! I agree with most of what you said. For goodness sake, one would have to change 3/4's of the Orthodox in the world if you used this list literally.

No problem, podkarpatska- the reunion of ALL Christians is something that has long been on my mind- no need to make it look harder than it actually is. I understand how many a Roman Catholic can become disheartened to find that reunion is not as simple as they would like, but then, think how it looks to us- all that really need be done is the Papacy's renunciation of supremacy and infallibility. It sounds easy enough, but it would be completely against Roman Catholic teaching. Likewise, for us to accept such supremacy and infallibility would be completely against Orthodox teaching. The main problem the two had in 1054 AD is still very much an ongoing reality, and the only solution I have ever (since my days of being not-so-former-a-reformer) been able to see is one that the RCC is just not ready to accept.

Would that Rome (and Constantinople, if only because many Western Christians see the EP as being the Orthodox pope) follow the teachings of Our Lord from the Lectionary this past Sunday and request to be placed LAST in the Diptychs and honor, the Roman Church would prove its true leadership and I believe Christians from every denomination would be moved toward unity.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,136



« Reply #48 on: April 04, 2012, 12:22:17 AM »

I know it's been said above, but I agree, Roman Catholics minimize the differences between us.  If the whole of Eastern Orthodoxy, would agree to submit the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the authority of the Pope, perhaps a little more limited authority, they would let us keep all theological differences, traditions and practices. Otherwise, governance or church order could be maintained as it is, essentially. Although that would be their intent, I'd bet the Pope would jump in and resolve any differences that arise, the types of matters that we let fester for decades and centuries, perhaps.   The RC's would considered the Orthodox, in the manner that their Byzantine Rites are treated.

The Orthodox, on the other hand, as Patriarch Athenagoras articulated to Pope Paul IV in one of their last correspondence, cannot reunite in one chalice, until the theological differences can be resolved.  And that frankly, is the reason for the dialogue, to study and evaluate the differences and to see where there is commonality.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2012, 12:28:25 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #49 on: April 04, 2012, 12:27:10 AM »

I know it's been said above, but I agree, Roman Catholics minimize the differences between us.  If the whole of Eastern Orthodoxy, would agree to submit the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the authority of the Pope, perhaps a little more limited authority, they would let us keep all theological differences, traditions and practices. Otherwise, governance or church order could be maintained as it is, essentially.  Although that would be their intent, I'd bet the Pope would jump in and resolve any differences that arise, the types of matters that we let fester for decades and centuries, perhaps.   The RC's would considered the Orthodox, in the manner that their Byzantine Rites are treated.
You mean the sui juris? LOL.  We would be lucky not to follow the fate of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in the Vatican scheme of things.
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
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #50 on: April 04, 2012, 12:43:08 AM »


This actually goes to a fundamentally different understanding of doctrine between Orthodoxy and Rome. For Orthodoxy, the dogma of the Church was complete with the Apostles. It can be clarified in the face of heresy, translated into new language or terms, but it cannot be added to or changed .

And all Catholic theologians agree.   As John Henry Newman insisted, "the Church does not know more than the Apostles knew."

If Orthodox are going to engage the Catholic understanding of dogmatic development, then it is important for Orthodox to be able to accurately state the Catholic understanding of dogmatic development.   



And what modern Catholic theologian argues that anyone in the 3rd century would have recognized the doctrine of Papal infallibility as being anywhere in what the Apostles preached? I'll admit, I read their historians more than their theologians, but they seem to have no problem admitting the rather obvious fact that this was an idea that developed over time.

As for accurately stating the Catholic explanation, it's more important to accurately state the reality. Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches all claimed their doctrine was consistent with/a continuation of the doctrine passed down from the Apostles. For some reason their opponents were more interested in accurately stating how this was false than in accurately stating how Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches thought they were being faithful to the Faith delivered once for all.

We are regularly told, by those who are optimistic about Rome-Orthodox reunion, that perhaps a path forward can be found in "the understanding of the Papacy/primacy from the first millenium". If the Roman idea of 'dogmatic development' is the same as the Orthodox, then this is a (sad) joke. Because then the claim would have to be that the understanding of primacy/papal infallibility/papal universality in the first millenium is the same as it is now--they just used different words (i.e., the difference between 'homoousious' and 'the Word was God' or between 'one nature of the Incarnate word' and 'one person, two natures'). Or in other words that the supposed path is simply for Orthodox to agree that the Roman understanding is the right one and we were wrong all along.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #51 on: April 04, 2012, 12:52:22 AM »

And what modern Catholic theologian argues that anyone in the 3rd century would have recognized the doctrine of Papal infallibility as being anywhere in what the Apostles preached? I'll admit, I read their historians more than their theologians, but they seem to have no problem admitting the rather obvious fact that this was an idea that developed over time.

Their historians and their RCIA directors, in my experience!  Smiley

Quote
As for accurately stating the Catholic explanation, it's more important to accurately state the reality. Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches all claimed their doctrine was consistent with/a continuation of the doctrine passed down from the Apostles. For some reason their opponents were more interested in accurately stating how this was false than in accurately stating how Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches thought they were being faithful to the Faith delivered once for all.

Well put. I've dealt with enough RC apologists since leaving the RC Church to know this trick -- "if you understood properly, then blahblahblah." Doesn't everyone say this? A Muslim will tell you that if you understood Islam properly, you'd see how peaceful and perfect it really is; A Mormon will tell you that if you understood their religion properly, you'd know it is true and convert; etc., etc.

It's not a point in favor of your religion or your understanding of your religion if everyone can claim the same for theirs, using basically the same reasoning.
Logged

Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #52 on: April 04, 2012, 01:48:25 AM »

And what modern Catholic theologian argues that anyone in the 3rd century would have recognized the doctrine of Papal infallibility as being anywhere in what the Apostles preached? I'll admit, I read their historians more than their theologians, but they seem to have no problem admitting the rather obvious fact that this was an idea that developed over time.

Their historians and their RCIA directors, in my experience!  Smiley

And yet I've been told by so many Catholic laymen that the Tome of Leo was an ex-cathedra statement.

Quote
As for accurately stating the Catholic explanation, it's more important to accurately state the reality. Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches all claimed their doctrine was consistent with/a continuation of the doctrine passed down from the Apostles. For some reason their opponents were more interested in accurately stating how this was false than in accurately stating how Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches thought they were being faithful to the Faith delivered once for all.

Well put. I've dealt with enough RC apologists since leaving the RC Church to know this trick -- "if you understood properly, then blahblahblah." Doesn't everyone say this? A Muslim will tell you that if you understood Islam properly, you'd see how peaceful and perfect it really is; A Mormon will tell you that if you understood their religion properly, you'd know it is true and convert; etc., etc.

It's not a point in favor of your religion or your understanding of your religion if everyone can claim the same for theirs, using basically the same reasoning.

Amen! I am so tired of hearing that the filioque is 'just a translation issue' or that the Orthodox are 'just using the filioque as an excuse to remain in schism', when in truth, it is an incredibly complex issue involving several theological and historical differences, such as the monarchy of the Father, the nature of trinitarian taxis, economy vs. eternity, essentialism vs. personalism, subsistent relations, the essence-energies distinction, divine simplicity, and papal authority.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #53 on: April 04, 2012, 09:22:18 AM »


If Orthodox are going to engage the Catholic understanding of dogmatic development, then it is important for Orthodox to be able to accurately state the Catholic understanding of dogmatic development.   
[/quote]

I think the Orthodox Church in total does accurately state the understanding of dogmatic development in the western church.  That doesnt mean we have to agree with it just because we know why it happens.   What makes you think that we dont understand the western idea of incremental development?
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #54 on: April 04, 2012, 09:30:36 AM »

Quote
And yet I've been told by so many Catholic laymen that the Tome of Leo was an ex-cathedra statement
yet it had to be reviewed and debated and finally agreed upon. How foolish of the other fathers to not accept it as obviously infallible  Roll Eyes

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #55 on: April 04, 2012, 09:33:46 AM »


 What makes you think that we dont understand the western idea of incremental development?

Because this is the attitude that I most often encounter in discussing this subject with RCs. If we Orthodox just understood what they really meant, and would quit being mad about stuff that occurred a long time ago, everything would be hunky-dory.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,504


« Reply #56 on: April 04, 2012, 09:34:22 AM »

What makes you think that we dont understand the western idea of incremental development?

There is a disconnect between what the doctrine of development originally was, and how it is perceived as being practiced. I defy any Orthodox Christian to read Newman's original work on the subject and demonstrate where it is faulty. IMO it is no more speculative or innovative than what Sts. Gregory the Theologian or Vincent of Lerins said in their own time. Like them Newman just happened to be more explicit than what had come before. Did any theologian before St. Gregory speak of a progression of understanding of the Trinity in the same way he did? Not that I know of. But if he was the first, did that make him wrong?

EDIT--Edited to say that I do realise that there were some modifications to what Newman said. I guess my point was that the concept in itself can work. The problem is in how people use, interpret, or modify it to justify certain things--on both sides.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2012, 09:42:34 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Large Marge sent me...
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #57 on: April 04, 2012, 09:42:19 AM »


This actually goes to a fundamentally different understanding of doctrine between Orthodoxy and Rome. For Orthodoxy, the dogma of the Church was complete with the Apostles. It can be clarified in the face of heresy, translated into new language or terms, but it cannot be added to or changed .

And all Catholic theologians agree.   As John Henry Newman insisted, "the Church does not know more than the Apostles knew."

If Orthodox are going to engage the Catholic understanding of dogmatic development, then it is important for Orthodox to be able to accurately state the Catholic understanding of dogmatic development.   

Perhaps witega is just referring to the fact that, in Catholicism, something that was never a dogma before can become a dogma.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #58 on: April 04, 2012, 09:43:20 AM »

Thanks former reformer - you saved me several hours of thinking and writing! I agree with most of what you said. For goodness sake, one would have to change 3/4's of the Orthodox in the world if you used this list literally.

No problem, podkarpatska- the reunion of ALL Christians is something that has long been on my mind- no need to make it look harder than it actually is. I understand how many a Roman Catholic can become disheartened to find that reunion is not as simple as they would like, but then, think how it looks to us- all that really need be done is the Papacy's renunciation of supremacy and infallibility. It sounds easy enough, but it would be completely against Roman Catholic teaching. Likewise, for us to accept such supremacy and infallibility would be completely against Orthodox teaching.

Actually, in most threads that I've read, both here and elsewhere, the thrust of the Catholic posters is not that the Orthodox need to accept those teaching for reunion to take place, but only that they need to admit that the teachings are not heretical.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #59 on: April 04, 2012, 09:45:44 AM »

Quote
And yet I've been told by so many Catholic laymen that the Tome of Leo was an ex-cathedra statement
yet it had to be reviewed and debated and finally agreed upon. How foolish of the other fathers to not accept it as obviously infallible  Roll Eyes

PP

Maybe the conclusion of the debate was that the Tome was infallible. Grin
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 04, 2012, 09:52:30 AM »

Quote
And yet I've been told by so many Catholic laymen that the Tome of Leo was an ex-cathedra statement
yet it had to be reviewed and debated and finally agreed upon. How foolish of the other fathers to not accept it as obviously infallible  Roll Eyes

PP

Maybe the conclusion of the debate was that the Tome was infallible. Grin
Touche' Smiley

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,493



« Reply #61 on: April 04, 2012, 10:16:40 AM »

I was talking to a buddy of mine who grew up protestant with me and later converted to RC.  He was a lot like I currently am and took nearly 3 years to decide between the RC and the OC.  He eventually went with the RC and when I asked why, he said it was largely because they were more open to the idea of reuniting which is very important to him. (note: thats not the ONLY reason. He does think the RC church is 'right')

While acknowledging that you said it was not your friend's only reaosn for so choosing, I feel compelled to comment that the reason of his which you point to is so incredibly vapid.

It reminds me of the "most friendly parent" idea in family law -- that the parent which is least hostile to the other is supposedly to be preferred, even if the actions of that parent are the cause of the hostility.

Understood.  And in his defense, I should have added that he was baptized Catholic as a baby, but didnt know until he was 18 years old because his family converted to protestantism shortly after.  His older brothers converted back to Catholicism, them him, then his parents.  One may not agree with his reasoning, but I guess knowing a little more about his history (not that its the main point of this thread anyways) would help make a little more sense of the decision.
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #62 on: April 04, 2012, 11:07:05 AM »

As for accurately stating the Catholic explanation, it's more important to accurately state the reality. Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches all claimed their doctrine was consistent with/a continuation of the doctrine passed down from the Apostles. For some reason their opponents were more interested in accurately stating how this was false than in accurately stating how Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches thought they were being faithful to the Faith delivered once for all.

I disagree.  Before two parties can have a substantive and meaningful dialogue on ____, it is absolutely crucial that each understand the other's position and be able to state it accurately, in a way that the other party can say, "Yes, you have understood me." 

It is simply wrong to say that the Catholic Church believes that it makes up dogma as it goes along (always, of course, under the alleged inspiration of the Spirit).  That is simply not what the Catholic Church teaches.  It is dishonest to suggest otherwise.  Whether we find plausible the Catholic claim that all of its dogmatic definitions are grounded in the apostolic revelation is a different question.  That can only be addressed on a case by case basis; but before we can address those cases, we must first demonstrate that we have clearly understood what the Catholic Church actually teaches about dogma and its development.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #63 on: April 04, 2012, 11:17:46 AM »

Quote
And yet I've been told by so many Catholic laymen that the Tome of Leo was an ex-cathedra statement
yet it had to be reviewed and debated and finally agreed upon. How foolish of the other fathers to not accept it as obviously infallible  Roll Eyes

PP

Maybe the conclusion of the debate was that the Tome was infallible. Grin
Touche' Smiley

PP
Irrelevant.  Pastor Aeternus demands that, as Pope St. Leo wanted, the matter was not up for debate.

Btw, no, that wasn't the conclusion.  Hence why the Fathers wrote their own definition.
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
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,963


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #64 on: April 04, 2012, 11:23:11 AM »

As for accurately stating the Catholic explanation, it's more important to accurately state the reality. Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches all claimed their doctrine was consistent with/a continuation of the doctrine passed down from the Apostles. For some reason their opponents were more interested in accurately stating how this was false than in accurately stating how Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches thought they were being faithful to the Faith delivered once for all.

I disagree.  Before two parties can have a substantive and meaningful dialogue on ____, it is absolutely crucial that each understand the other's position and be able to state it accurately, in a way that the other party can say, "Yes, you have understood me." 

It is simply wrong to say that the Catholic Church believes that it makes up dogma as it goes along (always, of course, under the alleged inspiration of the Spirit).  That is simply not what the Catholic Church teaches.  It is dishonest to suggest otherwise.  Whether we find plausible the Catholic claim that all of its dogmatic definitions are grounded in the apostolic revelation is a different question.  That can only be addressed on a case by case basis; but before we can address those cases, we must first demonstrate that we have clearly understood what the Catholic Church actually teaches about dogma and its development.

Well phrased Father! That is just what the ongoing, and ever so slowly consultations are trying to so. It is important though, as isa correctly likes to remind me, to not forget that post Vatican 2 is a mere snippet in time compared to the past thousand years or so. Keeping both points of view in mind is essential for there to be any progress in these matters.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #65 on: April 04, 2012, 11:38:42 AM »

Quote
And yet I've been told by so many Catholic laymen that the Tome of Leo was an ex-cathedra statement
yet it had to be reviewed and debated and finally agreed upon. How foolish of the other fathers to not accept it as obviously infallible  Roll Eyes

PP

Maybe the conclusion of the debate was that the Tome was infallible. Grin
Touche' Smiley

PP
Irrelevant.  Pastor Aeternus demands that, as Pope St. Leo wanted, the matter was not up for debate.

Btw, no, that wasn't the conclusion.  Hence why the Fathers wrote their own definition.

Hence the "Grin".

As far as what Pastor Aeternus demands, I believe that's contingent on the Tome being an ex cathedra statement.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #66 on: April 04, 2012, 11:51:04 AM »

As for accurately stating the Catholic explanation, it's more important to accurately state the reality. Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches all claimed their doctrine was consistent with/a continuation of the doctrine passed down from the Apostles. For some reason their opponents were more interested in accurately stating how this was false than in accurately stating how Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches thought they were being faithful to the Faith delivered once for all.

I disagree.  Before two parties can have a substantive and meaningful dialogue on ____, it is absolutely crucial that each understand the other's position and be able to state it accurately, in a way that the other party can say, "Yes, you have understood me." 
The problem is, Father, the partisans of the Vatican are going to have to have that conversation amongst themselves before coming to us. And then there is the problem that the Vatican has mandated cognitive dissonance, as in Pastor Aeternus "This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor."  History has disproved that over and over, and yet you will never get a believer in Pastor Aeternus to admit that.  "Jesuitry" is called that for a reason.

It is simply wrong to say that the Catholic Church believes that it makes up dogma as it goes along (always, of course, under the alleged inspiration of the Spirit).  That is simply not what the Catholic Church teaches.

It is, however what the Vatican does.

It is dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Far less than the dishonesty of calling a spade a spade.

Who teaching whom? I've heard things taught by those entrusted by their "magisterium" to teach, teaching things that, one would hope, the "magisterium" would deny.  Is it dishonest that Vatican is so teaching, when it is so teaching in its schools, its radio broadcasts, from the pulpit, etc...?

Case in point: they claim that their supreme pontiff teaches infallibly ex cathedra.  Can they define when he is speaking "ex cathedra"?  No.  And their "magisterium" refuses to define it.  Can they list the infallible ex cathedra statements?  No.  And the "magisterium" has not lent its "authority" to any such list.  Can they list the "supreme pontiffs" that could speak ex cathedra?  No.  And the "magisterium" even refuses to tell us what is the right succession of "vicars of Christ", except when it is convenient.  Yet Vatican II demands the same submission to the "supreme pontiff" even when he does not speak infallibly (Lumen Gentium).  So, if they believed that everything their Pope taught was infallible, how would they teach differently?  They wouldn't, not a jot.  But they are not going to say we understood them because we call a spade a spade.

""Yes, you have understood me." Waiting for that with someone who insists if you understood them, you would agree with them-and the belittlement of the filioque as a linguistic problem, the sweeping under the rug of "different spiritualities (Greek, Coptic, Assyrian, etc.)" of the cognitive dissonance of the Eastern sui juris Chalcedonian, non-Chalcedonian, Nestorian in the Vatican scheme of things, etc., shows that is what we are dealing with-that's just a fool's errand.

Whether we find plausible the Catholic claim that all of its dogmatic definitions are grounded in the apostolic revelation is a different question.  That can only be addressed on a case by case basis; but before we can address those cases, we must first demonstrate that we have clearly understood what the Catholic Church actually teaches about dogma and its development.
Demonstrate to whom?

Many of us clearly understood what the Vatican teaches about dogma and its development, because we were taught it by the Vatican, which is why we are Orthodox.  It is that reason why we can't get them to admit that their CCC is an accurate authority of its teaching: it would pin them down and give them something we can hold them to.
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
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #67 on: April 04, 2012, 12:04:54 PM »

Quote
It is simply wrong to say that the Catholic Church believes that it makes up dogma as it goes along (always, of course, under the alleged inspiration of the Spirit).  That is simply not what the Catholic Church teaches
I do have to say Father, that to me, it does seem that the Roman Church creates dogmas, then tries to go back in history to state that the Church (pre and post schism) has always practiced/believed it. Supremacy being the most obvious example.

Quote
It is dishonest to suggest otherwise
I wouldn't say its dishonest, but just an opinion based on observation.

Quote
That can only be addressed on a case by case basis
Yet a great deal of the cases look shockingly similar.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,764


look into my lovable alpaca eyes


« Reply #68 on: April 04, 2012, 12:18:49 PM »

Many of us clearly understood what the Vatican teaches about dogma and its development, because we were taught it by the Vatican, which is why we are Orthodox.  It is that reason why we can't get them to admit that their CCC is an accurate authority of its teaching: it would pin them down and give them something we can hold them to.

I've never heard anyone say the CCC isn't an accurate authority of teaching (not that anyone hasn't, just that I've never heard it). What is the point of a catechism, then? If it's not an accurate authority of teaching, then it seems pretty useless. The late Pope John Paul II certainly seemed to think it was accurate and authoritative in Fidei Depositum. In Section IV:

Quote
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #69 on: April 04, 2012, 12:27:05 PM »

Quote
It is simply wrong to say that the Catholic Church believes that it makes up dogma as it goes along (always, of course, under the alleged inspiration of the Spirit).  That is simply not what the Catholic Church teaches
I do have to say Father, that to me, it does seem that the Roman Church creates dogmas, then tries to go back in history to state that the Church (pre and post schism) has always practiced/believed it. Supremacy being the most obvious example.

I think you've completely missed the point.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #70 on: April 04, 2012, 12:29:53 PM »

Quote
It is simply wrong to say that the Catholic Church believes that it makes up dogma as it goes along (always, of course, under the alleged inspiration of the Spirit).  That is simply not what the Catholic Church teaches
I do have to say Father, that to me, it does seem that the Roman Church creates dogmas, then tries to go back in history to state that the Church (pre and post schism) has always practiced/believed it. Supremacy being the most obvious example.

I think you've completely missed the point.
If so, I apologize.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #71 on: April 04, 2012, 02:32:40 PM »

From I can tell, the most insurmountable obstacle of reunion is the nature of the Papacy.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #72 on: April 04, 2012, 02:55:38 PM »

Many of us clearly understood what the Vatican teaches about dogma and its development, because we were taught it by the Vatican, which is why we are Orthodox.  It is that reason why we can't get them to admit that their CCC is an accurate authority of its teaching: it would pin them down and give them something we can hold them to.

I've never heard anyone say the CCC isn't an accurate authority of teaching (not that anyone hasn't, just that I've never heard it). What is the point of a catechism, then? If it's not an accurate authority of teaching, then it seems pretty useless. The late Pope John Paul II certainly seemed to think it was accurate and authoritative in Fidei Depositum. In Section IV:

Quote
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html
Somewhere we have a thread on it.  It happens enough on the CAF whenever they are cornered by it.
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
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #73 on: April 04, 2012, 03:01:49 PM »

From I can tell, the most insurmountable obstacle of reunion is the nature of the Papacy.

This and removing the filioque from the creed. From what I've seen, Rome has been making great efforts to reformulate (further develop to clarify) some of the more doctrinal differences like the nature of the procession of Holy Spirit, purgatory, and indulgences to be more in line with Orthodox teaching. A return to the creed as expressed in 381 and reaching a common understanding of how the Pope relates to the other bishops and patriarchs are absolutely necessary, I believe that if these are done, it's not impossible for all the other "differences" to just work themselves out one way or another.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #74 on: April 04, 2012, 03:09:11 PM »

As for accurately stating the Catholic explanation, it's more important to accurately state the reality. Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches all claimed their doctrine was consistent with/a continuation of the doctrine passed down from the Apostles. For some reason their opponents were more interested in accurately stating how this was false than in accurately stating how Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches thought they were being faithful to the Faith delivered once for all.

I disagree.  Before two parties can have a substantive and meaningful dialogue on ____, it is absolutely crucial that each understand the other's position and be able to state it accurately, in a way that the other party can say, "Yes, you have understood me."  

It is simply wrong to say that the Catholic Church believes that it makes up dogma as it goes along (always, of course, under the alleged inspiration of the Spirit).  

I did not suggest, much less say, that the Catholic Church believes that it 'makes up dogma as it goes along.' I did not even suggest that that is the underlying reality. In fact, to avoid that kind of mischaracterization of what I was saying, I specifically used an example where Orthodoxy is in full agreement with Rome about the underlying facts(i.e., the Dormition, which not even the most anti-Roman among us believes they are 'making up').
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #75 on: April 04, 2012, 03:17:44 PM »

From I can tell, the most insurmountable obstacle of reunion is the nature of the Papacy.

This and removing the filioque from the creed. From what I've seen, Rome has been making great efforts to reformulate (further develop to clarify) some of the more doctrinal differences like the nature of the procession of Holy Spirit, purgatory, and indulgences to be more in line with Orthodox teaching. A return to the creed as expressed in 381 and reaching a common understanding of how the Pope relates to the other bishops and patriarchs are absolutely necessary, I believe that if these are done, it's not impossible for all the other "differences" to just work themselves out one way or another.
The problem is that I don't think we can reformulate any of our Dogmas in a way that contradict Vatican I. So think the Papacy will remain a church dividing issue until the end.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #76 on: April 04, 2012, 03:24:06 PM »

Quote
The problem is that I don't think we can reformulate any of our Dogmas in a way that contradict Vatican I
If Vatican I is not deemed infallible, it can be reversed, could it not?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,958



« Reply #77 on: April 04, 2012, 03:25:15 PM »

. Wouldnt you rather have your child learn about the Creation of Man according to Christian belief instead of the "Evolution" of Man.
Evolution is not a belief, but a scientific fact. That has been stated by leading Orthodox biologists, such as Prof. Dobzhansky. Also, the Vatican seems to accept evolution, at least since Humani Generis in 1950. If you want your children to be taught the unscientific Evangelical Protestant doctrine of "creationism", send them to an Evangelical Protestant school, not a Roman Catholic one.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,504


« Reply #78 on: April 04, 2012, 03:30:51 PM »

If you want your children to be taught the unscientific Evangelical Protestant doctrine of "creationism", send them to an Evangelical Protestant school, not a Roman Catholic one.

They could then attend Liberty "university" afterwards, where they teach both creationism and evolution in their biology courses.  police
Logged

Large Marge sent me...
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #79 on: April 04, 2012, 03:36:38 PM »

If you want your children to be taught the unscientific Evangelical Protestant doctrine of "creationism", send them to an Evangelical Protestant school, not a Roman Catholic one.

They could then attend Liberty "university" afterwards, where they teach both creationism and evolution in their biology courses.  police
.........the bane of life here in Lynchburg. We all wish that place would go away Smiley

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,963


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #80 on: April 04, 2012, 03:54:57 PM »

From I can tell, the most insurmountable obstacle of reunion is the nature of the Papacy.

This and removing the filioque from the creed. From what I've seen, Rome has been making great efforts to reformulate (further develop to clarify) some of the more doctrinal differences like the nature of the procession of Holy Spirit, purgatory, and indulgences to be more in line with Orthodox teaching. A return to the creed as expressed in 381 and reaching a common understanding of how the Pope relates to the other bishops and patriarchs are absolutely necessary, I believe that if these are done, it's not impossible for all the other "differences" to just work themselves out one way or another.
The problem is that I don't think we can reformulate any of our Dogmas in a way that contradict Vatican I. So think the Papacy will remain a church dividing issue until the end.

In other words, when the issues which divide us come down to the final four and the others are regarded merely as pious beliefs or non-mandatory ways of 'seeing things' upon which we agree, it will come down to A. the Pope, B. the Pope, C. the Pope and D. the Pope.

I suspect the east has no problem in viewing Vatican 1 as being anything more than a local synod of the Bishops of the Church of Rome. However, I agree that there appears no logical or rational way for the Church of Rome to accede to such a formulation. So I am left to conclude that best we may hope for is a continuing admission that we agree to disagree while we better understand each other and tone down the vitriol. Since the vitriol thing has been toned down at the highest levels over the past century, it will take time for this to filter down to the rest of us and centuries for their to be a generalized rebuilding of trust. I don't see structural 'reunion' as being possible and I am generally a moderate on inter- church relations.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,273


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #81 on: April 04, 2012, 03:55:10 PM »

If you want your children to be taught the unscientific Evangelical Protestant doctrine of "creationism", send them to an Evangelical Protestant school, not a Roman Catholic one.

They could then attend Liberty "university" afterwards, where they teach both creationism and evolution in their biology courses.  police
.........the bane of life here in Lynchburg. We all wish that place would go away Smiley

PP

 Shocked

Really?  Even all 82,000+ enrolled students?  Really?  Even all those employed by the university and all those whose jobs depend upon the university to one degree or another?  Maybe by "we all" you mean something slightly different?  Grin
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #82 on: April 04, 2012, 04:07:51 PM »

...So think the Papacy will remain a church dividing issue until the end.
Currently there are studies going on about how the papacy was viewed in the pre-1054 Church.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #83 on: April 04, 2012, 04:33:36 PM »

From I can tell, the most insurmountable obstacle of reunion is the nature of the Papacy.

This and removing the filioque from the creed. From what I've seen, Rome has been making great efforts to reformulate (further develop to clarify) some of the more doctrinal differences like the nature of the procession of Holy Spirit, purgatory, and indulgences to be more in line with Orthodox teaching. A return to the creed as expressed in 381 and reaching a common understanding of how the Pope relates to the other bishops and patriarchs are absolutely necessary, I believe that if these are done, it's not impossible for all the other "differences" to just work themselves out one way or another.
The problem is that I don't think we can reformulate any of our Dogmas in a way that contradict Vatican I. So think the Papacy will remain a church dividing issue until the end.

Exactly. Notwithstanding a very small percentage of Catholics who believe there have only been 7 ecumenical councils, the Vatican is pretty much tied to all 21 -- although possibly they could cut it back to the big 12, i.e. the first 7 plus the last 5 (Florence, Lateran (V), Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #84 on: April 04, 2012, 04:36:54 PM »

...So think the Papacy will remain a church dividing issue until the end.
Currently there are studies going on about how the papacy was viewed in the pre-1054 Church.

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #85 on: April 04, 2012, 04:46:08 PM »

It just seems to me that maybe there should be more of an effort on both sides to discuss reuniting.  And maybe this is happening after all.  I dont really keep up with who is talking to who within the Church, so hopefully people are making an effort.  If there are any articles or examples I could read of that happening, let me know.

From my perspective, Im kind of an outsider.  I know I cant be a protestant anymore and I have looked at both Churches for a while now.  I have had pretty convincing discussions about which church is "right" with people from both parties.  Ive always leaned Orthodoxy, but theres still a small part of me that isnt 100% sure.  I think this is why I have such a great desire for the Church to reunite.  It would make this decision so much easier.

Here is the issue: There is no negotiation over truth. There is no "Ok, we'll give up papal infallibility if you accept the filioque".

P.S. I am a former RCC.
Logged
Cantor Krishnich
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Pan-Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 545


Mar Ahmed the Daftadar


« Reply #86 on: April 04, 2012, 05:01:10 PM »

. Wouldnt you rather have your child learn about the Creation of Man according to Christian belief instead of the "Evolution" of Man.
Evolution is not a belief, but a scientific fact. That has been stated by leading Orthodox biologists, such as Prof. Dobzhansky. Also, the Vatican seems to accept evolution, at least since Humani Generis in 1950. If you want your children to be taught the unscientific Evangelical Protestant doctrine of "creationism", send them to an Evangelical Protestant school, not a Roman Catholic one.

It is NOT scientific fact. The Vatican does NOT accept it and the Orthdox Church does NOT accept it. I dont mean to be off topic or start a new thread but....

I think that the religious people who accept this belief fall into one of three categories. The first is that they think they can somehow squeeze the belief of evolution into their spiritual doctrine to provide confidence in their faith in God. The second is that they might be high-profiled scientist who want to keep their high profile so they also squeeze evolution into their doctrine so that they wont be bullied by their colleges or by the pro-liberal media. The third category is obvious, the people who say: "If you cant beat'em join'em".

Doesn't that ol' familiar creation story in the Book of Genesis give us the true story of what happened. Dont you accept this biblical passage as canonical scripture. If yes, then how could you accept the Darwinist evolution as scientific fact.
      
Logged

Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy Upon Me a Sinner!
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #87 on: April 04, 2012, 05:08:20 PM »

Agreed, Sauron. What is there to compromise on? The RC just wants more people in their ranks to support X, Y, Z (RC doctrines). Their "lights from the East" are used like tokens for the RC "big tent" idea of Christianity, all under the Roman Pope. Well, we don't want the Roman Pope as the unquestionable and infallible head of our church, as he is in the RC. Some of us (the Copts) have our own Pope already, and have had a Pope since long before the Romans, and have a proper understanding of what that means (and does not mean). Why should we compromise on anything? Why can't the model of unity be based on sharing the Orthodox faith, not on concessions?

Even the meeting of the Middle Eastern Bishops that the Vatican had a little while ago (I can't remember the exact conference name) yielded the clear message from the Eastern and Oriental Catholic participants: "more power to the Patriarchs". Well? Do you we want to be in a similar position, in exchange for a false unity with a weak and wavering Roman Church, so infiltrated as it is by the spirit of the (secular) age that the new Roman Pope comes in having to struggle to dig his church out of its own innovations and increasing irrelevance to the majority of its flock and the world? I think that the EO-OO unity would show a greater message to the world than EO or OO-RC unity. As long as the RC of today is saddled with the falsities of the RC of the post-Schism developments, nothing good will come from unity with it.

I'm another ex-RC, by the way.
Logged

Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #88 on: April 04, 2012, 05:09:07 PM »

Evolution is not a belief, but a scientific fact. That has been stated by leading Orthodox biologists, such as Prof. Dobzhansky. Also, the Vatican seems to accept evolution, at least since Humani Generis in 1950. If you want your children to be taught the unscientific Evangelical Protestant doctrine of "creationism", send them to an Evangelical Protestant school, not a Roman Catholic one.

It is NOT scientific fact. The Vatican does NOT accept it and the Orthdox Church does NOT accept it. I dont mean to be off topic or start a new thread but....

I think that the religious people who accept this belief fall into one of three categories. The first is that they think they can somehow squeeze the belief of evolution into their spiritual doctrine to provide confidence in their faith in God. The second is that they might be high-profiled scientist who want to keep their high profile so they also squeeze evolution into their doctrine so that they wont be bullied by their colleges or by the pro-liberal media. The third category is obvious, the people who say: "If you cant beat'em join'em".

Doesn't that ol' familiar creation story in the Book of Genesis give us the true story of what happened. Dont you accept this biblical passage as canonical scripture. If yes, then how could you accept the Darwinist evolution as scientific fact.
      

And I think that religious people who deny evolution think the Bible is a Quran.

If you wish to discuss this topic any further, I commend to your attention the Creationism thread in the Faith Issues forum.

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #89 on: April 04, 2012, 05:31:38 PM »

...So think the Papacy will remain a church dividing issue until the end.
Currently there are studies going on about how the papacy was viewed in the pre-1054 Church.

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus

I don't follow your logic. Why does it have to be all-or-nothing? (Possibly you've answered that before and I just don't remember.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   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 0.173 seconds with 72 queries.