the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me

[Maria]

My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.     )

Hey, I welcome the change. At least it is a positive change.

My Maronite ancestors wanted to blend in and become Americans, so they left the Maronite Church and became Roman Catholic. When I was looking into the Eastern Catholic Church where I live, the Maronite Church was at least an hour away (or more with traffic congestion) and these Maronites had the NO Mass. However, the Melkite Church was only 20 minutes away.

I wanted the ancient Aramaic liturgy, which I had attended in Atlanta, Georgia with my aunt, who had returned to her roots. That is why I started attending the Melkite Church, because they had their liturgy in Arabic, and I loved it there. However, the Melkite library contained largely Orthodox Christian books, so I started to look East, and the rest is history.

[Melesine]

I think some posters here would be well served by going back and rereading what they have posted to others. There is an obvious lack of Christian charity in some of the posts. I'm grateful that I have real life experience in a welcoming Orthodox parish so that I know that what I've read here by some ( not all) is not the norm for Orthodoxy. Some of you should be ashamed of the way you've conducted yourselves.

I hope this thread is locked. I think your forum would be well served with an ignore feature too.

[Maria]

I think some posters here would be well served by going back and rereading what they have posted to others. There is an obvious lack of Christian charity in some of the posts. I'm grateful that I have real life experience in a welcoming Orthodox parish so that I know that what I've read here by some ( not all) is not the norm for Orthodoxy. Some of you should be ashamed of the way you've conducted yourselves.

I hope this thread is locked. I think your forum would be well served with an ignore feature too.

Please forgive me if I have offended you by my posts.

[LizaSymonenko]

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

[choy]

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

That is always the difficulty in conversing with RCs regarding ecclesiology.  They always think the Orthodox Church is exactly like the Roman Catholic Church except that we don't want to follow the Pope of Rome.  It's a difficult concept to grasp for those who always looked for one "head honcho".

[Maria]

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

I am getting so tired; can barely open my eyes. It is one of those days with a lot of pollen in the air.

Anyway, Liza, I thought that you were telling a joke about an RC cowboy at first.
I could use a good joke about now. 

So, your coworker thinks that Papal infallibility is a relic of history?

[SolEX01]

I am Orthodox

You can't assert that, yet.

and I believe what the Orthodox believe.

What do the Orthodox believe and how is that different from Roman/Greek Catholicism?

But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?

When you receive the Holy Oil of Chrismation, you become a new man having put the old man in the past.  If you're still lured by Roman/Greek Catholicism, perhaps you need to discuss that with your Priest who's supervising your catechism.  You're not smarter than your Priest.   

If there's a question I can answer, why shouldn't I answer it?

Because answering is a temptation, a reminder of what you were.

It's not about being lured.  I know these things, should I pretend I don't?

It's not about pretending you don't know.  It's how that knowledge will impact your Orthodox faith.

Just to give a false impression about being Orthodox and not caring about my former Church?  Of course I care, just not in the way you think.

As long as you're being honest with yourself and your family regarding where you stand on the journey to Orthodoxy.

[Maria]

I am Orthodox

You can't assert that, yet.

and I believe what the Orthodox believe.

What do the Orthodox believe and how is that different from Roman/Greek Catholicism?

But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?

When you receive the Holy Oil of Chrismation, you become a new man having put the old man in the past.  If you're still lured by Roman/Greek Catholicism, perhaps you need to discuss that with your Priest who's supervising your catechism.  You're not smarter than your Priest.   

If there's a question I can answer, why shouldn't I answer it?

Because answering is a temptation, a reminder of what you were.

It's not about being lured.  I know these things, should I pretend I don't?

It's not about pretending you don't know.  It's how that knowledge will impact your Orthodox faith.

Just to give a false impression about being Orthodox and not caring about my former Church?  Of course I care, just not in the way you think.

As long as you're being honest with yourself and your family regarding where you stand on the journey to Orthodoxy.

I thought that this discussion had been tabled.
And you bring it up again?

[Maria]

Does anyone have an RC cowboy joke on papal infallibility or were the horses being replaced by horseless carriages?

Benz happened in 1896 in Germany.
In Cugnot, France, in 1791, there was a self propelled, three-wheeled steam engine, but it was quite grotesque.

[SolEX01]

I thought that this discussion had been tabled.
And you bring it up again?

The discussion between choy & me remains relevant to the thread.

[Maria]

I thought that this discussion had been tabled.
And you bring it up again?

The discussion between choy & me remains relevant to the thread.

Guys  

You can take a topic off-topic and then claim it is on-topic because you are interested in it.

Linguists have done studies which show that men actually take the subject off-topic more than women do, and that men talk more than women do.

I took a graduate course in college which discussed this whole scenario as part of discourse analysis. And no, PtA, I am not going to provide links. I did my homework in that class.

Back on Papal Infallibility: If it were so true, they why did some German RC bishops renounce their bishoprics over it? 100 percent of the bishops did not agree with Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. If Papal Infallibility did not make sense to Catholic Bishops, how can it make sense to priests and laity?

[choy]

Back on Papal Infallibility: If it were so true, they why did some German RC bishops renounce their bishoprics over it? 100 percent of the bishops did not agree with Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. If Papal Infallibility did not make sense to Catholic Bishops, how can it make sense to priests and laity?

Speaking about veering off topic, that happens when you ask someone to defend Papal Infallibility by giving a First Millennium example.  The best one I've heard so far is a faulty interpretation of Acts 15 where there are numerous assumptions made which are not mentioned in the text.

Normally they would just start talking about something else that isn't really about infallibility, but they think it points to that.  Like how ecumenical councils are ratified by the Pope (which again is not true).

[LizaSymonenko]

There once was this RC cowboy.

He ran in to the general store and bought a pound if tobacco. He was thrilled because he had gotten word from a fellow wrangler that he was going to get a new pipe tonight. You see it was his birthday.

The wrangler had gotten the news from the cook, who had heard it from his wife.

When he got home he waited eagerly. His wife had made his favorite dinner, and they had settled down by the fire, when she handed him the brown paper wrapped package.

Putting on his best surprise face, he ripped it open - only to find a tie, not a pipe.

He shockingly reproached his wife and wanted to know what happened to the new pipe.

She thought a moment and then burst out, "not a new pipe!  You got a new Pope!"

[Peter J]

My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.     )

Hey, I welcome the change. At least it is a positive change.

My Maronite ancestors wanted to blend in and become Americans, so they left the Maronite Church and became Roman Catholic. When I was looking into the Eastern Catholic Church where I live, the Maronite Church was at least an hour away (or more with traffic congestion) and these Maronites had the NO Mass.

Yeah, that sounds like my experience with a Maronite parish -- well, not the NO part, but that it was too far away and seemed pretty latinized. (I had already been going to a Melkite parish for 2 or 3 years at that point, so a latinized parish was a bit disappointing.)

[mike]

Hmmm ... I wasn't aware of that. (I mean, I was aware that Maria is used to be Catholic, but not that she has doubts about whether she left.)

I guess that throws a new light on her recent proclamation that the Maronite Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal.

I mean her OCA => True Genuine switch. Taking into consideration the amount of posts she makes here about the OCA she probably is not definitely sure she made good choice.

[choy]

My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.     )

Hey, I welcome the change. At least it is a positive change.

My Maronite ancestors wanted to blend in and become Americans, so they left the Maronite Church and became Roman Catholic. When I was looking into the Eastern Catholic Church where I live, the Maronite Church was at least an hour away (or more with traffic congestion) and these Maronites had the NO Mass.

Yeah, that sounds like my experience with a Maronite parish -- well, not the NO part, but that it was too far away and seemed pretty latinized. (I had already been going to a Melkite parish for 2 or 3 years at that point, so a latinized parish was a bit disappointing.)

This may be a bit of a segway, but how do Maronites remove Latinizations?  Without an Orthodox counterpart to compare with, how can we say what they are doing are not just part of the development of their tradition?  And certainly Latinization can be part of that development.  Isn't the difference in Byzantine and Oriental traditions a result of the schism of Chalcedon?  Should Antiochians and Alexandrians de-Hellenize?

[Papist]

Since he is an Orthodox catechumen, he is part of us.

"Us"? He attends an OCA parish, you are a true-genuine-patristic-something type.

Oh, I forgot. You also can't decide whether you left your previous Church or not.

Hmmm ... I wasn't aware of that. (I mean, I was aware that Maria is used to be Catholic, but not that she has doubts about whether she left.)

I guess that throws a new light on her recent proclamation that the Maronite Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal.

I was a Melkite, then I was chrismated into World Orthodoxy.
Now I am a member of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Kallinikos.

Thanks for sharing this. It gives some context to your perspective.

[Peter J]

My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.    )

Hey, I welcome the change. At least it is a positive change.

My Maronite ancestors wanted to blend in and become Americans, so they left the Maronite Church and became Roman Catholic. When I was looking into the Eastern Catholic Church where I live, the Maronite Church was at least an hour away (or more with traffic congestion) and these Maronites had the NO Mass.

Yeah, that sounds like my experience with a Maronite parish -- well, not the NO part, but that it was too far away and seemed pretty latinized. (I had already been going to a Melkite parish for 2 or 3 years at that point, so a latinized parish was a bit disappointing.)

This may be a bit of a segway, but how do Maronites remove Latinizations?  Without an Orthodox counterpart to compare with, how can we say what they are doing are not just part of the development of their tradition?  And certainly Latinization can be part of that development.  Isn't the difference in Byzantine and Oriental traditions a result of the schism of Chalcedon?  Should Antiochians and Alexandrians de-Hellenize?

I'll pretend I didn't hear that!

(Not that those are bad questions, I'm just not the person to answer them. And technically I'm not pretending, I really didn't hear that.)

[Maria]

My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.     )

Hey, I welcome the change. At least it is a positive change.

My Maronite ancestors wanted to blend in and become Americans, so they left the Maronite Church and became Roman Catholic. When I was looking into the Eastern Catholic Church where I live, the Maronite Church was at least an hour away (or more with traffic congestion) and these Maronites had the NO Mass.

Yeah, that sounds like my experience with a Maronite parish -- well, not the NO part, but that it was too far away and seemed pretty latinized. (I had already been going to a Melkite parish for 2 or 3 years at that point, so a latinized parish was a bit disappointing.)

This may be a bit of a segway, but how do Maronites remove Latinizations?  Without an Orthodox counterpart to compare with, how can we say what they are doing are not just part of the development of their tradition?  And certainly Latinization can be part of that development.  Isn't the difference in Byzantine and Oriental traditions a result of the schism of Chalcedon?  Should Antiochians and Alexandrians de-Hellenize?

The first latinization to remove is the NO Mass with a return of the Aramaic Liturgy or a decent translation of the Aramaic Liturgy.

Do Maronites have a paraclesis or akathist hymn to the Theotokos or some other non-Latin devotion to the Holy Theotokos?

Remove the Stations of the Cross, and replace them with icons (if those are in their tradition).

[Have you heard the old IRA joke about the Stations?]
There was this Irish chap who confessed to the priest that he had bombed the trains.
The priest replied, then do the Stations.

[minasoliman]

I hope we didn't lose our dear Melesine with all this side talk.

[choy]

I hope we didn't lose our dear Melesine with all this side talk.

Melesine at least is in contact with a priest, someone who'll do a million times better than people in this thread (me included).

[sedevacantist]

The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,

And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...

so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

[Peter J]

My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.    )

Hey, I welcome the change. At least it is a positive change.

My Maronite ancestors wanted to blend in and become Americans, so they left the Maronite Church and became Roman Catholic. When I was looking into the Eastern Catholic Church where I live, the Maronite Church was at least an hour away (or more with traffic congestion) and these Maronites had the NO Mass.

Yeah, that sounds like my experience with a Maronite parish -- well, not the NO part, but that it was too far away and seemed pretty latinized. (I had already been going to a Melkite parish for 2 or 3 years at that point, so a latinized parish was a bit disappointing.)

This may be a bit of a segway, but how do Maronites remove Latinizations?  Without an Orthodox counterpart to compare with, how can we say what they are doing are not just part of the development of their tradition?  And certainly Latinization can be part of that development.  Isn't the difference in Byzantine and Oriental traditions a result of the schism of Chalcedon?  Should Antiochians and Alexandrians de-Hellenize?

I'll pretend I didn't hear that!

(Not that those are bad questions, I'm just not the person to answer them. And technically I'm not pretending, I really didn't hear that.)

Hmmm ... thought someone would chuckle at that. I guess it just goes to show that you never know.

[JoeS2]

The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,

And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...

so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

His Holiness Bartholomew is not infallible.   He can make mistakes.  

[sedevacantist]

It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.

For those of us who has 33 years of Roman Catholic catechism in our heads, we just don't want to put such information to waste  

I'm trying to fnd some consistency in your posts. But I fail.

First you, using the phrase "we Orthodox" (could you remind me when were you received into the Church? I missed that) infallibly proclaim what "we Orthodox" believe or not believe. Then you defend the Roman Catholic Church from some other Roman Catholics who do not agree with it.

Can you decide what are you? Catholic? Orthodox? Orthodox catechuman? What do you believe?

I for one think Choy has consistently put forth these views not as his own, but as what he has been taught in the Orthodox and Catholic Catechism classes respectively.

I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.

While I think Choy is just a great guy, you know very well that ex-Catholics can't help themselves. 

he may  be a great guy but he was never a catholic, he belonged to the vatican 2 sect and doesn't know what he's talking about, as for your question about Pope Pius X11 I'm not aware of others saying he was an anti pope, he wasn't perfect that's for sure .

[Maria]

The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,

And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...

so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

BTW, the Orthodox Church does not teach ex-cathedra that the EP is infallible.

[SolEX01]

The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,

And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...

so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics?

You don't believe all the popes after 1054 are canonical popes.

[Maria]

The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,

And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...

so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

What is the difference between believing that all the popes after 1054 were heretics, and believing that all the popes after 1870, 1917, or 1959 were heretics?

You don't believe all the popes after 1054 are canonical Popes.

Exactly.

[stanley123]

The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,

And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...

so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

I have heard that this newspaper article may have taken the quote out of context. You can't condemn a man because someone has misreported what he intended to say. Newspapers have been reporting stories that Pope Francis may favor same sex marriage, which is not true.  I would rely more on official Church statements all of which oppose abortion AFAIK.

[choy]

he may  be a great guy but he was never a catholic, he belonged to the vatican 2 sect and doesn't know what he's talking about, as for your question about Pope Pius X11 I'm not aware of others saying he was an anti pope, he wasn't perfect that's for sure .

As people here have pointed out, that is history best left forgotten.  Right now I am 100% Catholic, in the very Orthodox sense of the word.

[choy]

What is the difference between believing that all the popes after 1054 were heretics, and believing that all the popes after 1870, 1917, or 1959 were heretics?

Why, the all-holy, greatest council in the history of the universe, Trent.  Where all traditions come from 

[PeterTheAleut]

The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,

And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...

so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

That's already being discussed here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50566.0.html

[Peter J]

I think some posters here would be well served by going back and rereading what they have posted to others. There is an obvious lack of Christian charity in some of the posts. I'm grateful that I have real life experience in a welcoming Orthodox parish so that I know that what I've read here by some ( not all) is not the norm for Orthodoxy. Some of you should be ashamed of the way you've conducted yourselves.

I hope this thread is locked. I think your forum would be well served with an ignore feature too.

Hi Melesine. Glad to see this crazy thread hasn't scared you off completely.

In my experience, this forum ... well, has it ups and downs.

[minasoliman]

I think some posters here would be well served by going back and rereading what they have posted to others. There is an obvious lack of Christian charity in some of the posts. I'm grateful that I have real life experience in a welcoming Orthodox parish so that I know that what I've read here by some ( not all) is not the norm for Orthodoxy. Some of you should be ashamed of the way you've conducted yourselves.

I hope this thread is locked. I think your forum would be well served with an ignore feature too.

I completely missed this post.  I'm glad for your strong spirituality!

[jmbejdl]

The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,

And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...

so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

We don't have 'a leader'. We don't need 'a leader' and certainly not an infallible one. The head of the Church is Christ. All bishops are equal, and equally fallible. And that most certainly includes the Pope of Rome when he was still Orthodox just as it includes the Ecumenical Patriarch now. As for the Popes since 1054, they were all schismatics and/or heretics. The status of the Popes prior to 1054 varies, most were Orthodox, but some were certainly heretics (Honorius I springs to mind).

James

[Papist]

The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,

And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...

so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

We don't have 'a leader'. We don't need 'a leader' and certainly not an infallible one. The head of the Church is Christ. All bishops are equal, and equally fallible. And that most certainly includes the Pope of Rome when he was still Orthodox just as it includes the Ecumenical Patriarch now. As for the Popes since 1054, they were all schismatics and/or heretics. The status of the Popes prior to 1054 varies, most were Orthodox, but some were certainly heretics (Honorius I springs to mind).

James

Protestant: "We don't have a priest. We don't need "priest" and certainly not an ordained one. The head of our Church is Christ. All believers are equal, and equlally priests. And that most certainly includes Eastern Orthodox Bishops and Lay people. As for Patriarchs since the time of Constantine, they are all heretics. The status of priests/presbyters varies prior to that. Most were christians, but some were certainly sacramental heretics."
 
Of course this is my view, but you get the point.

[Maria]

Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.

[jmbejdl]

The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,

And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...

so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

We don't have 'a leader'. We don't need 'a leader' and certainly not an infallible one. The head of the Church is Christ. All bishops are equal, and equally fallible. And that most certainly includes the Pope of Rome when he was still Orthodox just as it includes the Ecumenical Patriarch now. As for the Popes since 1054, they were all schismatics and/or heretics. The status of the Popes prior to 1054 varies, most were Orthodox, but some were certainly heretics (Honorius I springs to mind).

James

Protestant: "We don't have a priest. We don't need "priest" and certainly not an ordained one. The head of our Church is Christ. All believers are equal, and equlally priests. And that most certainly includes Eastern Orthodox Bishops and Lay people. As for Patriarchs since the time of Constantine, they are all heretics. The status of priests/presbyters varies prior to that. Most were christians, but some were certainly sacramental heretics."
 
Of course this is my view, but you get the point.

But, you appear to miss my point, which was that sedevacantist asked if the EP was our leader as though we necessarily must have one. It was the assumption that our ecclesiology must be like that of modern Rome that I wanted to point out as being wrong. Even you, however, must be able to see the difference between the Orthodox position and the Protestant one you attempted to parody it with. We are not throwing out Tradition as the Protestants do, we are refusing to add to it. As we are, you once were. But then you believe in 'development of doctrine'...

James

[J Michael]

Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.

I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.

[choy]

Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

My priest says that only Christ is infallible.  I guess it depends on how you would define Church here.  Some would argue that people in the Church would wound their communion with the Church if they commit error.  There is also the view that even Ecumenical Councils themselves are not infallible.

[choy]

Protestant: "We don't have a priest. We don't need "priest" and certainly not an ordained one. The head of our Church is Christ. All believers are equal, and equlally priests. And that most certainly includes Eastern Orthodox Bishops and Lay people. As for Patriarchs since the time of Constantine, they are all heretics. The status of priests/presbyters varies prior to that. Most were christians, but some were certainly sacramental heretics."
 
Of course this is my view, but you get the point.

But it's not much different in Orthodoxy, we don't believe our bishops to know everything and always be right.  History shows a lot of heretical bishops, even Patriarchs (including Popes of Rome).  Surely they have their role in the Church and in our faith but certainly they can fall into error and we have the duty and obligation to correct them and even resist them if they persist in their error.  St. Maximos is one great example of a layman monk who resisted heretical bishops.

[orthonorm]

Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.

I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.

Maria missed three pitches, not just one.

[J Michael]

Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.

I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.

Maria missed three pitches, not just one.

Baseball can be a brutal game.

[choy]

Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.

I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.

Of course the RCC believes that Christ is the head, but in absentia.  That is why a vicar is needed.

[orthonorm]

Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.

I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.

Of course the RCC believes that Christ is the head, but in absentia.  That is why a vicar is needed.

And some are wondering why folks don't want to you speaking for anyone else.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me