OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 03:48:42 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Filioque & Papal Infallibility  (Read 7617 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« on: May 31, 2012, 10:10:04 PM »

Ok, so it is my understanding that the big 4 (as I will refer to them as) are Dogma in the RC church.  I just spent the past 2 hours reading through old threads on all 4 & I cant find anything that deals directly with my question:

I was recently informed that (for example) the I.C. Is a dogma, as declared in the 4th Lateran.  BUT it is not dogmatic in the sense that it is necessary to believe for our salvation.  Is this true for all 4??  How does that even work??
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,373


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2012, 10:26:17 PM »

In your church, you call them theologoumena. Seems pretty similar to that. They are popular beliefs, but you don't have to profess them in order to be baptized.
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/
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,692


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2012, 10:31:40 PM »

In your church, you call them theologoumena. Seems pretty similar to that. They are popular beliefs, but you don't have to profess them in order to be baptized.

Wrong. A proclaimed dogma is essential teaching, theologoumena are educated, pious opinions. Or is the IC no longer a dogma of the RCC?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 10:32:23 PM by LBK » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2012, 10:40:59 PM »

In your church, you call them theologoumena. Seems pretty similar to that. They are popular beliefs, but you don't have to profess them in order to be baptized.

Um... what?

Immaculate Conception as defined by the encyclical Ineffabilis Deus
Quote
The Definition

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."[29]

Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

Papal Infallibility as defined by Pastor Aeternus from Vatican I
Quote
Chapter 1:
6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

Chapter 2:
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Chapter 3:
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Chapter 4:
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Filioque was defined multiple times as a tenant of faith, the last being the Council of Florence (which is a RC Ecumenical Council)
Quote
the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Epistle 15 (447);
the so-called Athanasian Creed;
several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI);
the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521);
St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655;
Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795;
the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680);
the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem;
the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii;
the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054);
the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215;
the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the
Council of Florence, 1439.

Purgatory is considered dogma by a teaching of the Magisterium
Logged


I'm going to need this.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,373


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2012, 10:43:19 PM »

Kind of funny: filioque invented in the Fifth Century.

Schism: not until the Eleventh Century.

 Lips Sealed

That's interesting.
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/
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2012, 11:07:54 PM »

Kind of funny: filioque invented in the Fifth Century.

Schism: not until the Eleventh Century.

 :-x

That's interesting.

It's interesting how simplistic and lacking in important details that is (like how Rome condemned the filioque in the Fifth Century).

:-x
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,373


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2012, 11:08:46 PM »

Kind of funny: filioque invented in the Fifth Century.

Schism: not until the Eleventh Century.

 :-x

That's interesting.

It's interesting how simplistic and lacking in important details that is (like how Rome condemned the filioque in the Fifth Century).

:-x

Ha ha ha. Doesn't change the fact that what I said was true.
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/
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2012, 11:40:30 PM »

Ha ha ha. Doesn't change the fact that what I said was true.

It's true, from a certain point of view.

^Youtube link
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 11:41:32 PM by Cognomen » Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,373


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2012, 11:41:42 PM »

Sigh.  Lips Sealed

Should have known.
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/
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2012, 11:54:41 PM »

Sigh.  Lips Sealed

Should have known.

What the problem is?

1. Joe is a bad driver.
2. Joe died.

Two statements related by one element but lacking critical details linking them.

Plus, it gave me the opportunity to post that video.  Smiley
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,585



« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2012, 12:02:52 AM »

Ok, so it is my understanding that the big 4 (as I will refer to them as) are Dogma in the RC church.  I just spent the past 2 hours reading through old threads on all 4 & I cant find anything that deals directly with my question:

I was recently informed that (for example) the I.C. Is a dogma, as declared in the 4th Lateran.  BUT it is not dogmatic in the sense that it is necessary to believe for our salvation.  Is this true for all 4??  How does that even work??
It doesn't, Father.
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
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2012, 12:05:23 AM »

Ha ha ha. Doesn't change the fact that what I said was true.

It's true, from a certain point of view.

^Youtube link

I normally can't stand this stuff, whatever this stuff is, but this produced a very welcomed laugh.

Thanks man.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2012, 12:38:40 AM »

Kind of funny: filioque invented in the Fifth Century.

Schism: not until the Eleventh Century.

 :-x

That's interesting.

It's interesting how simplistic and lacking in important details that is (like how Rome condemned the filioque in the Fifth Century).

:-x

Ha ha ha. Doesn't change the fact that what I said was true.

Ok? It doesn't prove anything.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,119



« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2012, 08:17:08 AM »

In your church, you call them theologoumena. Seems pretty similar to that. They are popular beliefs, but you don't have to profess them in order to be baptized.

Wrong. A proclaimed dogma is essential teaching, theologoumena are educated, pious opinions. Or is the IC no longer a dogma of the RCC?

When I first read Biro's post, I thought she was saying that you guys consider the IC a theologoumenon. But now that I re-read her post, it looks more like she's saying that we Catholics do.

I don't recall any announcement from the Vatican that the IC isn't a dogma any more, so I'm rather confused here.  Huh
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,119



« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2012, 08:19:42 AM »

Ok, so it is my understanding that the big 4 (as I will refer to them as) are Dogma in the RC church.  I just spent the past 2 hours reading through old threads on all 4 & I cant find anything that deals directly with my question:

I was recently informed that (for example) the I.C. Is a dogma, as declared in the 4th Lateran.  BUT it is not dogmatic in the sense that it is necessary to believe for our salvation.  Is this true for all 4??  How does that even work??

I don't know what Lateran IV said about the matter, but the IC was dogmatically defined in 1854 -- see Aindriú's post.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,373


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2012, 10:01:24 AM »

In your church, you call them theologoumena. Seems pretty similar to that. They are popular beliefs, but you don't have to profess them in order to be baptized.

Wrong. A proclaimed dogma is essential teaching, theologoumena are educated, pious opinions. Or is the IC no longer a dogma of the RCC?

When I first read Biro's post, I thought she was saying that you guys consider the IC a theologoumenon. But now that I re-read her post, it looks more like she's saying that we Catholics do.

I don't recall any announcement from the Vatican that the IC isn't a dogma any more, so I'm rather confused here.  Huh

I always thought it's not quite as important as it's portrayed here. When you're going to have a baby baptized, they baptize it- they don't insist that you wait until it can write a report on the IC.

When Roman Catholics recite the Creed, they don't talk about the IC. The filioque is there, yes, and I understand why that's problematic- but the Roman Catholics don't seem to stake the whole faith on the IC alone, as some here seem to believe. They haven't put it in the creed; it's not the most crucial part of the faith.

Hence, why it seems more like a theologoumena to me. If you don't want the opinions of Roman Catholics, why did you ask for them?
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/
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,119



« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2012, 10:11:43 AM »

In your church, you call them theologoumena. Seems pretty similar to that. They are popular beliefs, but you don't have to profess them in order to be baptized.

Wrong. A proclaimed dogma is essential teaching, theologoumena are educated, pious opinions. Or is the IC no longer a dogma of the RCC?

When I first read Biro's post, I thought she was saying that you guys consider the IC a theologoumenon. But now that I re-read her post, it looks more like she's saying that we Catholics do.

I don't recall any announcement from the Vatican that the IC isn't a dogma any more, so I'm rather confused here.  Huh

I always thought it's not quite as important as it's portrayed here. When you're going to have a baby baptized, they baptize it- they don't insist that you wait until it can write a report on the IC.

When Roman Catholics recite the Creed, they don't talk about the IC. The filioque is there, yes, and I understand why that's problematic- but the Roman Catholics don't seem to stake the whole faith on the IC alone, as some here seem to believe. They haven't put it in the creed; it's not the most crucial part of the faith.

Hence, why it seems more like a theologoumena to me. If you don't want the opinions of Roman Catholics, why did you ask for them?

I'm still not sure I understand you. Can something be both a dogma and a theologoumenon?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,373


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2012, 10:13:30 AM »

In your church, you call them theologoumena. Seems pretty similar to that. They are popular beliefs, but you don't have to profess them in order to be baptized.

Wrong. A proclaimed dogma is essential teaching, theologoumena are educated, pious opinions. Or is the IC no longer a dogma of the RCC?

When I first read Biro's post, I thought she was saying that you guys consider the IC a theologoumenon. But now that I re-read her post, it looks more like she's saying that we Catholics do.

I don't recall any announcement from the Vatican that the IC isn't a dogma any more, so I'm rather confused here.  Huh

I always thought it's not quite as important as it's portrayed here. When you're going to have a baby baptized, they baptize it- they don't insist that you wait until it can write a report on the IC.

When Roman Catholics recite the Creed, they don't talk about the IC. The filioque is there, yes, and I understand why that's problematic- but the Roman Catholics don't seem to stake the whole faith on the IC alone, as some here seem to believe. They haven't put it in the creed; it's not the most crucial part of the faith.

Hence, why it seems more like a theologoumena to me. If you don't want the opinions of Roman Catholics, why did you ask for them?

I'm still not sure I understand you. Can something be both a dogma and a theologoumenon?

I think many posters here have a different understanding of both.
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/
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,103


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


« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2012, 10:13:42 AM »

Ok, so it is my understanding that the big 4 (as I will refer to them as) are Dogma in the RC church.  I just spent the past 2 hours reading through old threads on all 4 & I cant find anything that deals directly with my question:

I was recently informed that (for example) the I.C. Is a dogma, as declared in the 4th Lateran.  BUT it is not dogmatic in the sense that it is necessary to believe for our salvation.  Is this true for all 4??  How does that even work??

Uh...how can a *dogma* not be *dogmatic*??  Huh

I was recently informed that pigs can fly.  Does that mean they really can? Pretty unlikely.  My point is--who informed you of this and what is the source of *their* information?  I find that when it comes to questions about dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church it really is best to refer to reliable Catholic resources, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church or various Vatican documents such as were posted earlier on this thread.

(If your source was a priest, well...hey, even a priest can be wrong--Catholic OR Orthodox.)
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 10:29:44 AM by J Michael » 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 (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,103


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


« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2012, 10:15:31 AM »

In your church, you call them theologoumena. Seems pretty similar to that. They are popular beliefs, but you don't have to profess them in order to be baptized.

Wrong. A proclaimed dogma is essential teaching, theologoumena are educated, pious opinions. Or is the IC no longer a dogma of the RCC?

When I first read Biro's post, I thought she was saying that you guys consider the IC a theologoumenon. But now that I re-read her post, it looks more like she's saying that we Catholics do.

I don't recall any announcement from the Vatican that the IC isn't a dogma any more, so I'm rather confused here.  Huh

 If you don't want the opinions of Roman Catholics, why did you ask for them?

Now, *there's* a loaded question  Grin  Wink 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 (?)
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2012, 10:37:36 AM »

Ok, so it is my understanding that the big 4 (as I will refer to them as) are Dogma in the RC church.  I just spent the past 2 hours reading through old threads on all 4 & I cant find anything that deals directly with my question:

I was recently informed that (for example) the I.C. Is a dogma, as declared in the 4th Lateran.  BUT it is not dogmatic in the sense that it is necessary to believe for our salvation.  Is this true for all 4??  How does that even work??

Uh...how can a *dogma* not be *dogmatic*??  Huh

I was recently informed that pigs can fly.  Does that mean they really can? Pretty unlikely.  My point is--who informed you of this and what is the source of *their* information?  I find that when it comes to questions about dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church it really is best to refer to reliable Catholic resources, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church or various Vatican documents such as were posted earlier on this thread.

(If your source was a priest, well...hey, even a priest can be wrong--Catholic OR Orthodox.)

My source was a Dominican scholar I met the other day.  BELIEVE me I'm having. The same issue you're.  The brief discussion we had led to him saying "yes its dogmatic, but not in the sense that it is required for salvation.  We just understand dogma differently & there are degrees of dogmati statements.".

I didn't have time to pursue it further, & it's been REALLY bothering me, so I thought I'd ask the rest of you for some help here.  Are there degrees of dogmatics in RC?  I would have no idea where to start with that
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2012, 10:38:28 AM »

In your church, you call them theologoumena. Seems pretty similar to that. They are popular beliefs, but you don't have to profess them in order to be baptized.

Wrong. A proclaimed dogma is essential teaching, theologoumena are educated, pious opinions. Or is the IC no longer a dogma of the RCC?

When I first read Biro's post, I thought she was saying that you guys consider the IC a theologoumenon. But now that I re-read her post, it looks more like she's saying that we Catholics do.

I don't recall any announcement from the Vatican that the IC isn't a dogma any more, so I'm rather confused here.  Huh

I always thought it's not quite as important as it's portrayed here. When you're going to have a baby baptized, they baptize it- they don't insist that you wait until it can write a report on the IC.

When Roman Catholics recite the Creed, they don't talk about the IC. The filioque is there, yes, and I understand why that's problematic- but the Roman Catholics don't seem to stake the whole faith on the IC alone, as some here seem to believe. They haven't put it in the creed; it's not the most crucial part of the faith.

Hence, why it seems more like a theologoumena to me. If you don't want the opinions of Roman Catholics, why did you ask for them?

I'm still not sure I understand you. Can something be both a dogma and a theologoumenon?

That's what I'm trying to figure out
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,373


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2012, 10:40:14 AM »

Ok, so it is my understanding that the big 4 (as I will refer to them as) are Dogma in the RC church.  I just spent the past 2 hours reading through old threads on all 4 & I cant find anything that deals directly with my question:

I was recently informed that (for example) the I.C. Is a dogma, as declared in the 4th Lateran.  BUT it is not dogmatic in the sense that it is necessary to believe for our salvation.  Is this true for all 4??  How does that even work??

Uh...how can a *dogma* not be *dogmatic*??  Huh

I was recently informed that pigs can fly.  Does that mean they really can? Pretty unlikely.  My point is--who informed you of this and what is the source of *their* information?  I find that when it comes to questions about dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church it really is best to refer to reliable Catholic resources, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church or various Vatican documents such as were posted earlier on this thread.

(If your source was a priest, well...hey, even a priest can be wrong--Catholic OR Orthodox.)

My source was a Dominican scholar I met the other day.  BELIEVE me I'm having. The same issue you're.  The brief discussion we had led to him saying "yes its dogmatic, but not in the sense that it is required for salvation.  We just understand dogma differently & there are degrees of dogmati statements.".

I didn't have time to pursue it further, & it's been REALLY bothering me, so I thought I'd ask the rest of you for some help here.  Are there degrees of dogmatics in RC?  I would have no idea where to start with that

Sorry to put it this way, but why do you care?

 Huh
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/
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2012, 10:41:02 AM »

Ok, so it is my understanding that the big 4 (as I will refer to them as) are Dogma in the RC church.  I just spent the past 2 hours reading through old threads on all 4 & I cant find anything that deals directly with my question:

I was recently informed that (for example) the I.C. Is a dogma, as declared in the 4th Lateran.  BUT it is not dogmatic in the sense that it is necessary to believe for our salvation.  Is this true for all 4??  How does that even work??
It doesn't, Father.

I didn't want to go there yet with the people I was dialoging with, but I do agree.  Rather confusing to have something proclaimed a dogma & then say its not dogmatic.  I just REALLY want a justification for that which would make sense.  It could be the key to our mutual dialogue.  If the big 4 aren't dogmatic, the there is no problem...right?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2012, 10:43:13 AM »

Ok, so it is my understanding that the big 4 (as I will refer to them as) are Dogma in the RC church.  I just spent the past 2 hours reading through old threads on all 4 & I cant find anything that deals directly with my question:

I was recently informed that (for example) the I.C. Is a dogma, as declared in the 4th Lateran.  BUT it is not dogmatic in the sense that it is necessary to believe for our salvation.  Is this true for all 4??  How does that even work??

Uh...how can a *dogma* not be *dogmatic*??  Huh

I was recently informed that pigs can fly.  Does that mean they really can? Pretty unlikely.  My point is--who informed you of this and what is the source of *their* information?  I find that when it comes to questions about dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church it really is best to refer to reliable Catholic resources, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church or various Vatican documents such as were posted earlier on this thread.

(If your source was a priest, well...hey, even a priest can be wrong--Catholic OR Orthodox.)

My source was a Dominican scholar I met the other day.  BELIEVE me I'm having. The same issue you're.  The brief discussion we had led to him saying "yes its dogmatic, but not in the sense that it is required for salvation.  We just understand dogma differently & there are degrees of dogmati statements.".

I didn't have time to pursue it further, & it's been REALLY bothering me, so I thought I'd ask the rest of you for some help here.  Are there degrees of dogmatics in RC?  I would have no idea where to start with that

Sorry to put it this way, but why do you care?

 Huh

Read ^

Plus, if we find put that all we have to do is reconfigure our definition of dogmatic, that changes the whole dialogue, just like when we finally agreed on terms with the OO's it changed our whole perspective on 1600 years of schism. 

Like I said above, if the big 4 are some weird kind of dogma that isn't really dogma, then there's nothing to fight about....right?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,373


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2012, 10:44:05 AM »

There is no key, because there should be no more 'mutual' dialogue.
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/
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2012, 10:46:03 AM »

There is no key, because there should be no more 'mutual' dialogue.

Tell that to the holy trinity.  They are in perfect & constant dialogue by their very nature as one God.  That is the perfect solution to our fragmentation.  Perfect, constant dialogue.  The only thing missing is to be of one mind, one will, like the HT
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,373


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2012, 10:48:51 AM »

There is no key, because there should be no more 'mutual' dialogue.

Tell that to the holy trinity.  They are in perfect & constant dialogue by their very nature as one God.  That is the perfect solution to our fragmentation.  Perfect, constant dialogue.  The only thing missing is to be of one mind, one will, like the HT

I meant between our churches.
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/
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,103


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


« Reply #28 on: June 01, 2012, 10:58:58 AM »

Ok, so it is my understanding that the big 4 (as I will refer to them as) are Dogma in the RC church.  I just spent the past 2 hours reading through old threads on all 4 & I cant find anything that deals directly with my question:

I was recently informed that (for example) the I.C. Is a dogma, as declared in the 4th Lateran.  BUT it is not dogmatic in the sense that it is necessary to believe for our salvation.  Is this true for all 4??  How does that even work??

Uh...how can a *dogma* not be *dogmatic*??  Huh

I was recently informed that pigs can fly.  Does that mean they really can? Pretty unlikely.  My point is--who informed you of this and what is the source of *their* information?  I find that when it comes to questions about dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church it really is best to refer to reliable Catholic resources, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church or various Vatican documents such as were posted earlier on this thread.

(If your source was a priest, well...hey, even a priest can be wrong--Catholic OR Orthodox.)

My source was a Dominican scholar I met the other day.  BELIEVE me I'm having. The same issue you're.  The brief discussion we had led to him saying "yes its dogmatic, but not in the sense that it is required for salvation.  We just understand dogma differently & there are degrees of dogmati statements.".

I didn't have time to pursue it further, & it's been REALLY bothering me, so I thought I'd ask the rest of you for some help here.  Are there degrees of dogmatics in RC?  I would have no idea where to start with that

I should have added, "Even scholars can be wrong".  Go to reliable, magisterial sources for your information.  Scholars, even Dominicans, even extremely eminent ones, are not the Magisterium of the Church, and do not define doctrine or dogma.  And, depending on their "politics" may have agendas and axes to grind. 

My wife was educated for 12 years in the Catholic educational system.  During the 1960's a group of very highly educated Jesuit (eeek!) priests and scholars were brought into her high school to teach them religion.  One of the first things they "taught" was--"You can forget everything that was written in the Bible.  We'll teach you what's what."  OY VEY IST MIR!!  Yeah, priests and scholars (of any communion), regardless of the extent of their knowledge and education, most certainly *can* be wrong!

If something is a defined *dogma*, it is, by definition and regardless of how any given Joe Schmoe individual, scholar or otherwise, may "understand" it, *dogmatic*. 

You may want to read, from here; http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#88, about dogma in the Catholic Church.
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 (?)
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 01, 2012, 11:00:53 AM »

There is no key, because there should be no more 'mutual' dialogue.

Tell that to the holy trinity.  They are in perfect & constant dialogue by their very nature as one God.  That is the perfect solution to our fragmentation.  Perfect, constant dialogue.  The only thing missing is to be of one mind, one will, like the HT

I meant between our churches.

Thats what I'm saying too.  Our theology tells us that the HT is perfect dialogue between the 3 persons of the trinity.  That theological principle is the cornerstone of any schisms or breaks in the church. The way to coexist perfectly is in perfect love & dialogue.  Our existence is to be dialogical beings.  The Logos made incarnate.  These are he principles of our humanity & theology.  So no more mutual dialogue doesn't make sense in that paradigm
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #30 on: June 01, 2012, 11:10:50 AM »


If something is a defined *dogma*, it is, by definition and regardless of how any given Joe Schmoe individual, scholar or otherwise, may "understand" it, *dogmatic*. 

Well said.

Just because the Church is filled with cafeteria Catholics doesn't mean the issues are matters of theologoumenon.

I know plenty of Catholics who don't believe in the Real Presence but still consider themselves devout, practicing Catholics.  So, if we're siding with common concensus on what is or isn't doctrine, I suppose the Eucharist will soon be theologoumenon.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,373


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 01, 2012, 11:17:40 AM »

There is no key, because there should be no more 'mutual' dialogue.

Tell that to the holy trinity.  They are in perfect & constant dialogue by their very nature as one God.  That is the perfect solution to our fragmentation.  Perfect, constant dialogue.  The only thing missing is to be of one mind, one will, like the HT

I meant between our churches.

Thats what I'm saying too.  Our theology tells us that the HT is perfect dialogue between the 3 persons of the trinity.  That theological principle is the cornerstone of any schisms or breaks in the church. The way to coexist perfectly is in perfect love & dialogue.  Our existence is to be dialogical beings.  The Logos made incarnate.  These are he principles of our humanity & theology.  So no more mutual dialogue doesn't make sense in that paradigm

You are a more compassionate person than I am. It gives me hope.

I am sorry I am not a better representative of the faith. Thank you.
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/
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,119



« Reply #32 on: June 01, 2012, 11:28:36 AM »


If something is a defined *dogma*, it is, by definition and regardless of how any given Joe Schmoe individual, scholar or otherwise, may "understand" it, *dogmatic*. 

Well said.

Not only that, but we might go on to say that, if something is a pork chop, it is, by definition and regardless of how any given Joe Schmoe individual, scholar or otherwise, may understand it, a pork chop.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,103


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


« Reply #33 on: June 01, 2012, 11:34:01 AM »


If something is a defined *dogma*, it is, by definition and regardless of how any given Joe Schmoe individual, scholar or otherwise, may "understand" it, *dogmatic*. 

Well said.

Not only that, but we might go on to say that, if something is a pork chop, it is, by definition and regardless of how any given Joe Schmoe individual, scholar or otherwise, may understand it, a pork chop.

And I loves pork chops!!!  Mm, mmm, mmmmmmmmm!!!

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 (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,119



« Reply #34 on: June 01, 2012, 12:09:08 PM »

I've been thinking a lot about this thread this morning. It seems like the underlying issue here is also one of the main frustrations I have as a Catholic. Let me put it this way: my job is essentially to assume that certain statements from various popes are true (e.g. the statement from Pius IX that the IC is not only true, but is in fact a dogma), and then to reconcile them. It isn't always easy.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,103


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


« Reply #35 on: June 01, 2012, 12:14:08 PM »

I've been thinking a lot about this thread this morning. It seems like the underlying issue here is also one of the main frustrations I have as a Catholic. Let me put it this way: my job is essentially to assume that certain statements from various popes are true (e.g. the statement from Pius IX that the IC is not only true, but is in fact a dogma), and then to reconcile them. It isn't always easy.

You want "easy"?  Atheism and relativism are "easy".  So are pork chops  Grin.

Who ever said being a Christian of any variety would be easy?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 12:17:36 PM by J Michael » 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 (?)
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,362


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 01, 2012, 12:22:33 PM »

I've been thinking a lot about this thread this morning. It seems like the underlying issue here is also one of the main frustrations I have as a Catholic. Let me put it this way: my job is essentially to assume that certain statements from various popes are true (e.g. the statement from Pius IX that the IC is not only true, but is in fact a dogma), and then to reconcile them. It isn't always easy.

Peter, for me the problem has always been very simple.  What separates us are the big 4.  They are separations ONLY because they are Dogmas & necessary for salvation. If they were theologoumena then who the heck cares!  But they are not.  Then I find out from a Dominican...they kind of are..not dogma? 

WTH(eck) is going on!  And while he may just be totally wrong, that would make me sick BC here is a very well educated RC who does not understand the dogmatic statements of his church?! 

Honestly too, I'm wondering if he's right.  If there are degrees & variances of dogma, as the RC considered that word/topic
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,103


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


« Reply #37 on: June 01, 2012, 12:28:07 PM »

I've been thinking a lot about this thread this morning. It seems like the underlying issue here is also one of the main frustrations I have as a Catholic. Let me put it this way: my job is essentially to assume that certain statements from various popes are true (e.g. the statement from Pius IX that the IC is not only true, but is in fact a dogma), and then to reconcile them. It isn't always easy.

Peter, for me the problem has always been very simple.  What separates us are the big 4.  They are separations ONLY because they are Dogmas & necessary for salvation. If they were theologoumena then who the heck cares!  But they are not.  Then I find out from a Dominican...they kind of are..not dogma? 

WTH(eck) is going on!  And while he may just be totally wrong, that would make me sick BC here is a very well educated RC who does not understand the dogmatic statements of his church?! 

Honestly too, I'm wondering if he's right.  If there are degrees & variances of dogma, as the RC considered that word/topic

Why are you so (apparently) eager to assume that your Dominican scholar is right?  Have you researched the issue any further and deeper than on an *Orthodox* internet discussion board?

I may be grossly under-informed but I've *never* heard of "degrees & variances of dogma".  Ever.
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 (?)
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #38 on: June 01, 2012, 01:07:52 PM »


Who ever said being a Christian of any variety would be easy?

The IC isn't about being Christian at all.

The calendar is full of Christian saints who never believed in any dogma pertaining to the Blessed Mother.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,103


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


« Reply #39 on: June 01, 2012, 01:17:53 PM »


Who ever said being a Christian of any variety would be easy?

The IC isn't about being Christian at all.

The calendar is full of Christian saints who never believed in any dogma pertaining to the Blessed Mother.

The calendar is also full of Christian saints who did.  Neither of which makes being a Christian any easier, though, does it? 
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 (?)
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #40 on: June 01, 2012, 01:34:20 PM »

The calendar is also full of Christian saints who did.  Neither of which makes being a Christian any easier, though, does it? 

No - but to Peter's point, why should any Christian have to try to explain something like the IC?
Logged

Tasting is Believing
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,103


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


« Reply #41 on: June 01, 2012, 01:43:17 PM »

The calendar is also full of Christian saints who did.  Neither of which makes being a Christian any easier, though, does it?  

No - but to Peter's point, why should any Christian have to try to explain something like the IC?

Why should any Christian have to try to explain something like the Trinity?  Or a virgin giving birth to God?  Now, *that* ain't easy, is it?  And yet, we are sometimes/oftentimes/occasionally called to do so, are we not?  As for the IC, you as an OC are under no obligation to try to explain it.  Catholics, on the other hand, may be called to do so.  Depending on our catechesis and understanding and the willingness of those hearing it to hear and understand, it may be more or less difficult.  

If a Catholic is struggling with an understanding of any particular Catholic dogma it's usually good advice for them to pray, seek counsel with a good priest or spiritual director, pray some more, and read and try to understand.  Sometimes that makes it a little easier--but not always.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 01:48:40 PM by J Michael » 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 (?)
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #42 on: June 01, 2012, 01:52:51 PM »

Why should any Christian have to try to explain something like the Trinity?  Or a virgin giving birth to God? 

I thought that would be your rebuttal.

Because those topics are at the heart of Christian faith and therefore essential for man's salvation.  The IC, however, is not.

Logged

Tasting is Believing
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,103


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


« Reply #43 on: June 01, 2012, 02:23:35 PM »

Why should any Christian have to try to explain something like the Trinity?  Or a virgin giving birth to God? 

I thought that would be your rebuttal.

Because those topics are at the heart of Christian faith and therefore essential for man's salvation.  The IC, however, is not.



And I thought that would be *your* rebuttal  Grin Grin

If acceptance of a dogma is essential for one's salvation (is it?) and the (Catholic) Church has defined the IC as a dogma.....  By the way, I, for one, am in *no* position whatsoever to comment on anyone else's salvation.  That's between them and God.

I can certainly accept that you and other Orthodox are unable/unwilling to accept the IC as dogma but it does sadden me somewhat, especially (but not solely) to the extent that it keeps our One Church from being truly unified.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 02:24:44 PM by J Michael » 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 (?)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,410


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 01, 2012, 02:31:02 PM »

Why should any Christian have to try to explain something like the Trinity?  Or a virgin giving birth to God? 

I thought that would be your rebuttal.

Because those topics are at the heart of Christian faith and therefore essential for man's salvation.  The IC, however, is not.



And I thought that would be *your* rebuttal  Grin Grin

If acceptance of a dogma is essential for one's salvation (is it?) and the (Catholic) Church has defined the IC as a dogma.....  By the way, I, for one, am in *no* position whatsoever to comment on anyone else's salvation.  That's between them and God.

I can certainly accept that you and other Orthodox are unable/unwilling to accept the IC as dogma but it does sadden me somewhat, especially (but not solely) to the extent that it keeps our One Church from being truly unified.
I guess my question is which dogma. There are times that there are conflicting dogmas, such as:

*from Unam Sanctum*
Quote
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Now, from Vatican II:
Quote
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church

So it seems kind of contradictory. So I can understand the question about dogma and salvation mentioned earlier.


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
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.17 seconds with 72 queries.