Author Topic: are these ideas acceptable to the orthodox, for catholic/orthodox communion?  (Read 1633 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline n8nrgmi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
cardinal ratzinger, later pope benedict, now emeritus pope below.

basically, it's a model for how a relationship with the orthodox could be. that is, there's no condemnation of them, just a pius silence on papal infallibility. and, it is expected that whatever beliefs the easterns differ on, they should allow that it is possible for Rome to not be heretical. the idea, it was said, was that there shouldn't be more requirred of soemone who would have passed as christian in the earliest church, than if they were alive today. that is, they would have passed as a full christian then, but now because of their thoughts on infallibility of rome, are not considered christian.... and that this shouldn't be the case

it looks like the catholic church should be the one avoiding the communion, to me. they wouldn't want to lead people into thinking it's okay to not follow the pope. if the catholic church were willing to do this, why would the orthodox church insist on separation and severing unity, just to call out heresy? it's not like all the orthodox churches agree on everything, either, i'm sure. why are the issues that separate them, so major?


4.22.2008 "The Ratzinger Proposal"
Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse. Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say, nevertheless, that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today. After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and people of Constantinople as “very Christian and orthodox”, although their concept of the Roman primacy was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

Such a mutual act of acceptance and recognition, in the Catholicity that is common to and still possessed by each side, is assuredly no light matter. It is an act of self-conquest, of self-denunciation and, certainly, also of self-discovery. It is an act that cannot be brought about by diplomacy but must be a spiritual undertaking of the whole Church in both East and West. If what is theologically possible is also to be actually possible in the Church, the theological aspect must be spiritually prepared and spiritually accepted. My diagnosis of the relationship between East and West in the Church is as follows: from a theological perspective, the union of the Churches of East and West is fundamentally possible, but the spiritual preparation is not yet sufficiently far advanced and, therefore, not yet ready in practice. When I say it is fundamentally possible from a theological perspective, I do not overlook the fact that, on closer inspection, a number of obstacles still exist with respect to the theological possibility: from the Filioque to the question of the indissolubility of marriage. Despite these difficulties, some of which are present more strongly in the West, some in the East, we must learn that unity, for its part, is a Christian truth, an essentially Christian concept, of so high a rank that it can be sacrificed only to safeguard what is most fundamental, not where the way to it is obstructed by formulations and practices that, however important they may be, do not destroy community in the faith of the Fathers and in the basic form of the Church as they saw her."

– Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), pp. 198-199. (source)

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Quote
When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.

This does sound like charity on both sides. Unfortunate that the office of the bishop of Rome became such an obstacle to Church unity, but it is what it is. However:

Quote
Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

There's the rub. If the Orthodox accept everything about the second millennium Roman church, then they accept all her heresies and outrages and farces. Plainly that would be unorthodox and unacceptable.

In practical terms, it seems that different Popes and Patriarchs take different approaches to reunion. The hopes of some of them do seem high. But overall the odds are very bad.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2018, 09:00:39 PM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline n8nrgmi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
Quote
When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.

This does sound like charity on both sides. Unfortunate that the office of the bishop of Rome became such an obstacle to Church unity, but it is what it is. However:

Quote
Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

There's the rub. If the Orthodox accept everything about the second millennium Roman church, then they accept all her heresies and outrages and farces. Plainly that would be unorthodox and unacceptable, and if it were possible there never would have been a schism.

In practical terms, it seems different Popes and Patriarchs take different approaches to reunion. Hopes of some do seem high. But overall the odds are very bad.

i dont even know why the pope said that the orthodox would have to consider the west not heretical. couldn't the west just accept that the east thinks some of its teachings are heretical?

how does the orthodox church deal with heresies between its own churches? how do they differ so much than the differences with the catholic church?

also, all the things like the differences in the creed the filoque and such don't seem major. the basic idea of authority structure is pretty monumental to differ on, but i question whether it's as bad as everyone is making it out to be. they are pretty fundamental and major teachings so, so i can understand the dispute.

then there's the idea. what if they did get back together? all the folks stuck in between the two are either ahead of our time. or at the very least, folks like me are behind the times given they used to be in union.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,370
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
cardinal ratzinger, later pope benedict, now emeritus pope below.

basically, it's a model for how a relationship with the orthodox could be. that is, there's no condemnation of them, just a pius silence on papal infallibility. and, it is expected that whatever beliefs the easterns differ on, they should allow that it is possible for Rome to not be heretical. the idea, it was said, was that there shouldn't be more requirred of soemone who would have passed as christian in the earliest church, than if they were alive today. that is, they would have passed as a full christian then, but now because of their thoughts on infallibility of rome, are not considered christian.... and that this shouldn't be the case

it looks like the catholic church should be the one avoiding the communion, to me. they wouldn't want to lead people into thinking it's okay to not follow the pope. if the catholic church were willing to do this, why would the orthodox church insist on separation and severing unity, just to call out heresy? it's not like all the orthodox churches agree on everything, either, i'm sure. why are the issues that separate them, so major?


4.22.2008 "The Ratzinger Proposal"
Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse. Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say, nevertheless, that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today. After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and people of Constantinople as “very Christian and orthodox”, although their concept of the Roman primacy was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

Such a mutual act of acceptance and recognition, in the Catholicity that is common to and still possessed by each side, is assuredly no light matter. It is an act of self-conquest, of self-denunciation and, certainly, also of self-discovery. It is an act that cannot be brought about by diplomacy but must be a spiritual undertaking of the whole Church in both East and West. If what is theologically possible is also to be actually possible in the Church, the theological aspect must be spiritually prepared and spiritually accepted. My diagnosis of the relationship between East and West in the Church is as follows: from a theological perspective, the union of the Churches of East and West is fundamentally possible, but the spiritual preparation is not yet sufficiently far advanced and, therefore, not yet ready in practice. When I say it is fundamentally possible from a theological perspective, I do not overlook the fact that, on closer inspection, a number of obstacles still exist with respect to the theological possibility: from the Filioque to the question of the indissolubility of marriage. Despite these difficulties, some of which are present more strongly in the West, some in the East, we must learn that unity, for its part, is a Christian truth, an essentially Christian concept, of so high a rank that it can be sacrificed only to safeguard what is most fundamental, not where the way to it is obstructed by formulations and practices that, however important they may be, do not destroy community in the faith of the Fathers and in the basic form of the Church as they saw her."

– Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), pp. 198-199. (source)
You're presupposing something that is a non issue for us. Our leader is our current bishop.  If he fails to produce fruit. We just move to the next one. We dont have a concept of ultimate leader. Accept our relationship  with christ.
Im aware there are a lot of people out there that have a need to belong to a greater group. Its labeled as fanaticism. If you feel you are experiencing these feelings. I suggest you find someone to help you cope. Its not healthy to cling onto this type of behavior.  Its similar to alcoholism. 

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
cardinal ratzinger, later pope benedict, now emeritus pope below.

basically, it's a model for how a relationship with the orthodox could be. that is, there's no condemnation of them, just a pius silence on papal infallibility. and, it is expected that whatever beliefs the easterns differ on, they should allow that it is possible for Rome to not be heretical. the idea, it was said, was that there shouldn't be more requirred of soemone who would have passed as christian in the earliest church, than if they were alive today. that is, they would have passed as a full christian then, but now because of their thoughts on infallibility of rome, are not considered christian.... and that this shouldn't be the case

it looks like the catholic church should be the one avoiding the communion, to me. they wouldn't want to lead people into thinking it's okay to not follow the pope. if the catholic church were willing to do this, why would the orthodox church insist on separation and severing unity, just to call out heresy? it's not like all the orthodox churches agree on everything, either, i'm sure. why are the issues that separate them, so major?


4.22.2008 "The Ratzinger Proposal"
Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse. Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say, nevertheless, that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today. After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and people of Constantinople as “very Christian and orthodox”, although their concept of the Roman primacy was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

Such a mutual act of acceptance and recognition, in the Catholicity that is common to and still possessed by each side, is assuredly no light matter. It is an act of self-conquest, of self-denunciation and, certainly, also of self-discovery. It is an act that cannot be brought about by diplomacy but must be a spiritual undertaking of the whole Church in both East and West. If what is theologically possible is also to be actually possible in the Church, the theological aspect must be spiritually prepared and spiritually accepted. My diagnosis of the relationship between East and West in the Church is as follows: from a theological perspective, the union of the Churches of East and West is fundamentally possible, but the spiritual preparation is not yet sufficiently far advanced and, therefore, not yet ready in practice. When I say it is fundamentally possible from a theological perspective, I do not overlook the fact that, on closer inspection, a number of obstacles still exist with respect to the theological possibility: from the Filioque to the question of the indissolubility of marriage. Despite these difficulties, some of which are present more strongly in the West, some in the East, we must learn that unity, for its part, is a Christian truth, an essentially Christian concept, of so high a rank that it can be sacrificed only to safeguard what is most fundamental, not where the way to it is obstructed by formulations and practices that, however important they may be, do not destroy community in the faith of the Fathers and in the basic form of the Church as they saw her."

– Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), pp. 198-199. (source)
You're presupposing something that is a non issue for us. Our leader is our current bishop.  If he fails to produce fruit. We just move to the next one. We dont have a concept of ultimate leader. Accept our relationship  with christ.
Im aware there are a lot of people out there that have a need to belong to a greater group. Its labeled as fanaticism. If you feel you are experiencing these feelings. I suggest you find someone to help you cope. Its not healthy to cling onto this type of behavior.  Its similar to alcoholism.

I think you're way out of line. The Church is central to the experience of God on earth, and includes the Saints in heaven. How do you justify your responses regarding the Church, here and in another thread, as Orthodox?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Quote
When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.

This does sound like charity on both sides. Unfortunate that the office of the bishop of Rome became such an obstacle to Church unity, but it is what it is. However:

Quote
Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

There's the rub. If the Orthodox accept everything about the second millennium Roman church, then they accept all her heresies and outrages and farces. Plainly that would be unorthodox and unacceptable, and if it were possible there never would have been a schism.

In practical terms, it seems different Popes and Patriarchs take different approaches to reunion. Hopes of some do seem high. But overall the odds are very bad.

i dont even know why the pope said that the orthodox would have to consider the west not heretical. couldn't the west just accept that the east thinks some of its teachings are heretical?

How could the Body of Christ commune with heresy? Heresy amounts to slander of God. It also deceives those who seek salvation, blinding them to the Way, and the duty of the Church is the salvation of souls. Maybe I'm not understanding you.

Quote
how does the orthodox church deal with heresies between its own churches? how do they differ so much than the differences with the catholic church?

We don't have jurisdictions that dogmatize heresy in our Church. God forbid. In the past if such a thing occurred, then there was dialog, counsels, calls to repentance, perhaps anathemas, perhaps schism. If those dogmatizing heresy repented and recanted, they could return to the fold; and of course the same for their followers. Let's pray such troubles do not arise again soon.

Quote
also, all the things like the differences in the creed the filoque and such don't seem major.

I'd be curious what you'd include in "and such." But as for the filioque, the Orthodox church does consider it major. On the other hand, the Catholic church seems to have become eager to deflect attention from it.

Quote
the basic idea of authority structure is pretty monumental to differ on, but i question whether it's as bad as everyone is making it out to be. they are pretty fundamental and major teachings so, so i can understand the dispute.

Again, the Orthodox church does perceive a proud and rebellious Papacy to have sired a host of important abuses. I'd be curious how you'd attempt to separate the state of the Catholic church from her Popes.

Quote
then there's the idea. what if they did get back together? all the folks stuck in between the two are either ahead of our time. or at the very least, folks like me are behind the times given they used to be in union.

Who are "all the folks stuck in between the two"? As I tried to clarify in the other thread, the Eastern Catholic churches are fully Catholic.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,254
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Quote
When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.

This does sound like charity on both sides. Unfortunate that the office of the bishop of Rome became such an obstacle to Church unity, but it is what it is. However:

Quote
Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

There's the rub. If the Orthodox accept everything about the second millennium Roman church, then they accept all her heresies and outrages and farces. Plainly that would be unorthodox and unacceptable, and if it were possible there never would have been a schism.

In practical terms, it seems different Popes and Patriarchs take different approaches to reunion. Hopes of some do seem high. But overall the odds are very bad.

i dont even know why the pope said that the orthodox would have to consider the west not heretical. couldn't the west just accept that the east thinks some of its teachings are heretical?

how does the orthodox church deal with heresies between its own churches? how do they differ so much than the differences with the catholic church?

also, all the things like the differences in the creed the filoque and such don't seem major. the basic idea of authority structure is pretty monumental to differ on, but i question whether it's as bad as everyone is making it out to be. they are pretty fundamental and major teachings so, so i can understand the dispute.

The Pope as the sole successor of St. Peter, with universal ordinary jurisdiction seems to me every bit "as bad as everyone is making it out to be."

then there's the idea. what if they did get back together? all the folks stuck in between the two are either ahead of our time. or at the very least, folks like me are behind the times given they used to be in union.

I guess. What difference does it make?

Though, I don't see how they could really get back together without a major overhaul of Papal Supremacy (which would just cause a bunch of micro-schisms in both East and West, anyway).
« Last Edit: March 22, 2018, 10:07:45 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,328
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
As much as I respect PP BXVI, he seems to follow the stead of other great Catholic theologians when it comes to the papacy.  The Catholic Church put itself in an untenable position when it erroneously claimed inerrancy.  Every innovation that came about after the Great Schism cannot even be nuanced, lest it cast doubt on Rome's infallibility.

The only possibility for the people of God in the Catholic Church is to come to find out about the Orthodox Church and join it.  It shouldn't be expected from them to abide by any doctrine that didn't exist in the first Christ millennium either.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline n8nrgmi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
Quote
When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.

This does sound like charity on both sides. Unfortunate that the office of the bishop of Rome became such an obstacle to Church unity, but it is what it is. However:

Quote
Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

There's the rub. If the Orthodox accept everything about the second millennium Roman church, then they accept all her heresies and outrages and farces. Plainly that would be unorthodox and unacceptable, and if it were possible there never would have been a schism.

In practical terms, it seems different Popes and Patriarchs take different approaches to reunion. Hopes of some do seem high. But overall the odds are very bad.

i dont even know why the pope said that the orthodox would have to consider the west not heretical. couldn't the west just accept that the east thinks some of its teachings are heretical?

How could the Body of Christ commune with heresy? Heresy amounts to slander of God. It also deceives those who seek salvation, blinding them to the Way, and the duty of the Church is the salvation of souls. Maybe I'm not understanding you.

Quote
how does the orthodox church deal with heresies between its own churches? how do they differ so much than the differences with the catholic church?

We don't have jurisdictions that dogmatize heresy in our Church. God forbid. In the past if such a thing occurred, then there was dialog, counsels, calls to repentance, perhaps anathemas, perhaps schism. If those dogmatizing heresy repented and recanted, they could return to the fold; and of course the same for their followers. Let's pray such troubles do not arise again soon.

Quote
also, all the things like the differences in the creed the filoque and such don't seem major.

I'd be curious what you'd include in "and such." But as for the filioque, the Orthodox church does consider it major. On the other hand, the Catholic church seems to have become eager to deflect attention from it.

Quote
the basic idea of authority structure is pretty monumental to differ on, but i question whether it's as bad as everyone is making it out to be. they are pretty fundamental and major teachings so, so i can understand the dispute.

Again, the Orthodox church does perceive a proud and rebellious Papacy to have sired a host of important abuses. I'd be curious how you'd attempt to separate the state of the Catholic church from her Popes.

Quote
then there's the idea. what if they did get back together? all the folks stuck in between the two are either ahead of our time. or at the very least, folks like me are behind the times given they used to be in union.

Who are "all the folks stuck in between the two"? As I tried to clarify in the other thread, the Eastern Catholic churches are fully Catholic.

you said yourself that there are variations of beliefs among the orthodox. i do understand i only have a superficial understanding of othordoxy, and could see a fundamental v not fundamental belief distinction being made. i would question how this distinction is done, though, on at least a lot of issues.

i mean, i can see the central aspect of authority structures being pretty monumentally fundamental. but that point aside, i still have a lot of questions about how the orthodox can stay in communion with itself with so many beliefs.

the first seven council thing can make sense as a broad approach, but when you get down to it it seems pretty arbitrary. there must be more to it. perhaps there is something i dont see.

Offline n8nrgmi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
well i suppose the 'what is believe everywhere by all" type thinking could justify the first seven councils, thing. it's not a false distinction, but rather just an agreed upon number.

i would still like to see more about the fundamental v not fundamental distinction, though.

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • Goths and rivetheads are entering the Kingdom of God before me
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,075
  • Screwing up the Church since 2017
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Atlanta
As much as I respect PP BXVI, he seems to follow the stead of other great Catholic theologians when it comes to the papacy.  The Catholic Church put itself in an untenable position when it erroneously claimed inerrancy.  Every innovation that came about after the Great Schism cannot even be nuanced, lest it cast doubt on Rome's infallibility.

The only possibility for the people of God in the Catholic Church is to come to find out about the Orthodox Church and join it.  It shouldn't be expected from them to abide by any doctrine that didn't exist in the first Christ millennium either.
Vatican II made an attempt to nuance Florence though:
Quote from: Council of Florence, Bull of Union with the Copts
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
vs.
Quote from: Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegrato
For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) 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.
and
Quote from: Vatican II, Nostra Aetate
Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.
Is it nuance, or contradiction disguised by sophistry?
Too many theologists, not enough theologians.

Offline n8nrgmi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
the contraception point is a good example. i can see that being a fundamental belief. how does orthodoxy stay in communion with itself, given it's so disputed?
it may not be the fundamental issue i'm making it out to be, though. more could be said about this distinction.

i cited the contraception thing in another tread trending in the faith section. here is another link that says that contraception is not inherently evil with qualification, is the majority view in the orthodox church, but that there are vocal opponents. the one poster here said they are correct with consensus of church fathers on their side. i haven't examined the evidence to see if that is true.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

i also question how people were able to advance realistically theologically when they didn't have the internet back then. i guess there's some wisdom to the idea that Jesus won't lead the church to error on fundamental stuff, and obeying one's priest is important. i question when the priest can be right or wrong, and the fundamental v not distionctions though.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2018, 11:57:26 PM by n8nrgmi »

Offline n8nrgmi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
i can see it is possible that the fathers taught that contraception was bad. in general language. and then the modern church didn't so much contradict it, as develop the ideas. perhaps the conservatives are the ones in the wrong. i haven't examined the evidence to say.

my point though, is maybe this isn't a fundamental issue that divides the orthodox. (though that would make a lot of conservative orthodox, upset, though, if that contraception thing were not black and white teaching)

but there are surely distinctions to be made to address all my concerns in the above post.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
you said yourself that there are variations of beliefs among the orthodox.

If I did, this is not the same as saying there is heresy. What, to you, is heresy?

Quote
the first seven council thing can make sense as a broad approach, but when you get down to it it seems pretty arbitrary. there must be more to it. perhaps there is something i dont see.

What you may be missing is the consensus of your millions of Christian brothers and sisters, here and in Heaven, that the Ecumenical Councils (however many one might say there were) were of vital importance to the faith and were the provision of the Holy Spirit. I'd suggest reading some positive, pious books on the subject to enrich your understanding.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
As much as I respect PP BXVI, he seems to follow the stead of other great Catholic theologians when it comes to the papacy.  The Catholic Church put itself in an untenable position when it erroneously claimed inerrancy.  Every innovation that came about after the Great Schism cannot even be nuanced, lest it cast doubt on Rome's infallibility.

The only possibility for the people of God in the Catholic Church is to come to find out about the Orthodox Church and join it.  It shouldn't be expected from them to abide by any doctrine that didn't exist in the first Christ millennium either.
Vatican II made an attempt to nuance Florence though:
Quote from: Council of Florence, Bull of Union with the Copts
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
vs.
Quote from: Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegrato
For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) 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.
and
Quote from: Vatican II, Nostra Aetate
Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.
Is it nuance, or contradiction disguised by sophistry?

I'd say at base it's simply callousness toward the past and some sort of enthusiasm for modern approval. Sophistry, however, does become a habit if indulged in for enough centuries.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
the contraception point is a good example. i can see that being a fundamental belief. how does orthodoxy stay in communion with itself, given it's so disputed?

Where are you getting these ideas? Seriously, where are you going, and learning that the Orthodox Church is full of heresy and dogmatic disputation? I want to know.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline n8nrgmi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
you said yourself that there are variations of beliefs among the orthodox.

If I did, this is not the same as saying there is heresy. What, to you, is heresy?

Quote
the first seven council thing can make sense as a broad approach, but when you get down to it it seems pretty arbitrary. there must be more to it. perhaps there is something i dont see.

What you may be missing is the consensus of your millions of Christian brothers and sisters, here and in Heaven, that the Ecumenical Councils (however many one might say there were) were of vital importance to the faith and were the provision of the Holy Spirit. I'd suggest reading some positive, pious books on the subject to enrich your understanding.

my personal stance towards heresy is that it is deviation from normal belief. i could see, and see this variation on google, that heresy is actually "significant" deviation, not any deviation.

i would like to see more development on the fundamental belief v not idea though. i can see papal infallibility as fundamental, but i dont see how these things are squared up with the orthodox among themselves.

the filoque debate seems less fundamental than contraception, yet the orthodox make the filoque into more than i think is necessary. and, im sure the contraception point is fundamental enough to at least some orthodox, to want to start throwing heresy claims around. how do you survive that and not communion with rome? should we consider even grades between levels of beliefs that are all fundamental?

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
you said yourself that there are variations of beliefs among the orthodox.

If I did, this is not the same as saying there is heresy. What, to you, is heresy?

Quote
the first seven council thing can make sense as a broad approach, but when you get down to it it seems pretty arbitrary. there must be more to it. perhaps there is something i dont see.

What you may be missing is the consensus of your millions of Christian brothers and sisters, here and in Heaven, that the Ecumenical Councils (however many one might say there were) were of vital importance to the faith and were the provision of the Holy Spirit. I'd suggest reading some positive, pious books on the subject to enrich your understanding.

my personal stance towards heresy is that it is deviation from normal belief. i could see, and see this variation on google, that heresy is actually "significant" deviation, not any deviation.

i would like to see more development on the fundamental belief v not idea though. i can see papal infallibility as fundamental, but i dont see how these things are squared up with the orthodox among themselves.

the filoque debate seems less fundamental than contraception, yet the orthodox make the filoque into more than i think is necessary. and, im sure the contraception point is fundamental enough to at least some orthodox, to want to start throwing heresy claims around. how do you survive that and not communion with rome? should we consider even grades between levels of beliefs that are all fundamental?

I'm sorry, but it's not like that at all. Orthodox are quite satisfied with the Councils as, to use your term, the fundamental belief. Anathemas are not flying thru the air in Orthodox circles, no. What you think you see on Google is your concern, not the Church's. Why not go to Divine Liturgy instead?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • Goths and rivetheads are entering the Kingdom of God before me
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,075
  • Screwing up the Church since 2017
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Atlanta
you said yourself that there are variations of beliefs among the orthodox.

If I did, this is not the same as saying there is heresy. What, to you, is heresy?

Quote
the first seven council thing can make sense as a broad approach, but when you get down to it it seems pretty arbitrary. there must be more to it. perhaps there is something i dont see.

What you may be missing is the consensus of your millions of Christian brothers and sisters, here and in Heaven, that the Ecumenical Councils (however many one might say there were) were of vital importance to the faith and were the provision of the Holy Spirit. I'd suggest reading some positive, pious books on the subject to enrich your understanding.

my personal stance towards heresy is that it is deviation from normal belief. i could see, and see this variation on google, that heresy is actually "significant" deviation, not any deviation.

i would like to see more development on the fundamental belief v not idea though. i can see papal infallibility as fundamental, but i dont see how these things are squared up with the orthodox among themselves.

the filoque debate seems less fundamental than contraception, yet the orthodox make the filoque into more than i think is necessary. and, im sure the contraception point is fundamental enough to at least some orthodox, to want to start throwing heresy claims around. how do you survive that and not communion with rome? should we consider even grades between levels of beliefs that are all fundamental?
I can't agree with you. The filioque not existing in what the Lord Himself said about the Holy Spirit, the same wording that was repeated in the Creed adopted at Constantinople, along with the entire Church saying no other creed should be used at least once at Ephesus, and possibly twice at another council in 879 that at the time East and West accepted, and it being the only truly dogmatic issue around in 1054 when Rome separated from the other Patriarchates, makes it pretty fundamental. In fact, this is the entire reason I left Rome for the Church.

Passionately arguing over the actual vs. metaphorical existence of the toll-houses, or whether bishops may allow their priests to suggest contraception to some couples in some situations that undoubtedly vary between couples? Not so much.
Too many theologists, not enough theologians.

Offline n8nrgmi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
you said yourself that there are variations of beliefs among the orthodox.

If I did, this is not the same as saying there is heresy. What, to you, is heresy?

Quote
the first seven council thing can make sense as a broad approach, but when you get down to it it seems pretty arbitrary. there must be more to it. perhaps there is something i dont see.

What you may be missing is the consensus of your millions of Christian brothers and sisters, here and in Heaven, that the Ecumenical Councils (however many one might say there were) were of vital importance to the faith and were the provision of the Holy Spirit. I'd suggest reading some positive, pious books on the subject to enrich your understanding.

my personal stance towards heresy is that it is deviation from normal belief. i could see, and see this variation on google, that heresy is actually "significant" deviation, not any deviation.

i would like to see more development on the fundamental belief v not idea though. i can see papal infallibility as fundamental, but i dont see how these things are squared up with the orthodox among themselves.

the filoque debate seems less fundamental than contraception, yet the orthodox make the filoque into more than i think is necessary. and, im sure the contraception point is fundamental enough to at least some orthodox, to want to start throwing heresy claims around. how do you survive that and not communion with rome? should we consider even grades between levels of beliefs that are all fundamental?

I'm sorry, but it's not like that at all. Orthodox are quite satisfied with the Councils as, to use your term, the fundamental belief. Anathemas are not flying thru the air in Orthodox circles, no. What you think you see on Google is your concern, not the Church's. Why not go to Divine Liturgy instead?

i know the orthodox are not throwing around heresy on contraception, but i might suppose it could be. if they could but dont, on a fundamental issue... why do they choose to stay separated from rome, on that fundamental issue? i mean i can see there could be grades of fundamental issues, but still.

i do like your advice, though. visiting an orthodox place like i did when i was younger and less informed but just starting to question things. make concrete steps in my life instead of intetellectualzing it all. i am beginning to worry more about what the orthodox think, instead of rome. like when someone said i could be old catholic... i was worrying more about the orthodox church than rome. still have some lingering psychology with rome, though.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
you said yourself that there are variations of beliefs among the orthodox.

If I did, this is not the same as saying there is heresy. What, to you, is heresy?

Quote
the first seven council thing can make sense as a broad approach, but when you get down to it it seems pretty arbitrary. there must be more to it. perhaps there is something i dont see.

What you may be missing is the consensus of your millions of Christian brothers and sisters, here and in Heaven, that the Ecumenical Councils (however many one might say there were) were of vital importance to the faith and were the provision of the Holy Spirit. I'd suggest reading some positive, pious books on the subject to enrich your understanding.

my personal stance towards heresy is that it is deviation from normal belief. i could see, and see this variation on google, that heresy is actually "significant" deviation, not any deviation.

i would like to see more development on the fundamental belief v not idea though. i can see papal infallibility as fundamental, but i dont see how these things are squared up with the orthodox among themselves.

the filoque debate seems less fundamental than contraception, yet the orthodox make the filoque into more than i think is necessary. and, im sure the contraception point is fundamental enough to at least some orthodox, to want to start throwing heresy claims around. how do you survive that and not communion with rome? should we consider even grades between levels of beliefs that are all fundamental?

I'm sorry, but it's not like that at all. Orthodox are quite satisfied with the Councils as, to use your term, the fundamental belief. Anathemas are not flying thru the air in Orthodox circles, no. What you think you see on Google is your concern, not the Church's. Why not go to Divine Liturgy instead?

i know the orthodox are not throwing around heresy on contraception, but i might suppose it could be. if they could but dont, on a fundamental issue... why do they choose to stay separated from rome, on that fundamental issue? i mean i can see there could be grades of fundamental issues, but still.

No, you were asking how we manage to stay one Church with all the accusations of heresy from one to another of us. That's just -- fantasy. Now you're responding as tho I said we have no heresies we agree upon -- well, sure, I think we don't, but that's a different matter.

But as to that matter -- whether the Orthodox are heretics -- now that you've raised it explicitly, why don't you lay out the extent of your concerns? In the Orthodox-Catholic discussion subforum of course.

Quote
i do like your advice, though. visiting an orthodox place like i did when i was younger and less informed but just starting to question things. make concrete steps in my life instead of intetellectualzing it all. i am beginning to worry more about what the orthodox think, instead of rome. like when someone said i could be old catholic... i was worrying more about the orthodox church than rome. still have some lingering psychology with rome, though.

Yes, I think you should visit an Orthodox church. What else would be the point of all your posting and Googling?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline n8nrgmi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
you said yourself that there are variations of beliefs among the orthodox.

If I did, this is not the same as saying there is heresy. What, to you, is heresy?

Quote
the first seven council thing can make sense as a broad approach, but when you get down to it it seems pretty arbitrary. there must be more to it. perhaps there is something i dont see.

What you may be missing is the consensus of your millions of Christian brothers and sisters, here and in Heaven, that the Ecumenical Councils (however many one might say there were) were of vital importance to the faith and were the provision of the Holy Spirit. I'd suggest reading some positive, pious books on the subject to enrich your understanding.

my personal stance towards heresy is that it is deviation from normal belief. i could see, and see this variation on google, that heresy is actually "significant" deviation, not any deviation.

i would like to see more development on the fundamental belief v not idea though. i can see papal infallibility as fundamental, but i dont see how these things are squared up with the orthodox among themselves.

the filoque debate seems less fundamental than contraception, yet the orthodox make the filoque into more than i think is necessary. and, im sure the contraception point is fundamental enough to at least some orthodox, to want to start throwing heresy claims around. how do you survive that and not communion with rome? should we consider even grades between levels of beliefs that are all fundamental?

I'm sorry, but it's not like that at all. Orthodox are quite satisfied with the Councils as, to use your term, the fundamental belief. Anathemas are not flying thru the air in Orthodox circles, no. What you think you see on Google is your concern, not the Church's. Why not go to Divine Liturgy instead?

i know the orthodox are not throwing around heresy on contraception, but i might suppose it could be. if they could but dont, on a fundamental issue... why do they choose to stay separated from rome, on that fundamental issue? i mean i can see there could be grades of fundamental issues, but still.

No, you were asking how we manage to stay one Church with all the accusations of heresy from one to another of us. That's just -- fantasy. Now you're responding as tho I said we have no heresies we agree upon -- well, sure, I think we don't, but that's a different matter.

But as to that matter -- whether the Orthodox are heretics -- now that you've raised it explicitly, why don't you lay out the extent of your concerns? In the Orthodox-Catholic discussion subforum of course.

Quote
i do like your advice, though. visiting an orthodox place like i did when i was younger and less informed but just starting to question things. make concrete steps in my life instead of intetellectualzing it all. i am beginning to worry more about what the orthodox think, instead of rome. like when someone said i could be old catholic... i was worrying more about the orthodox church than rome. still have some lingering psychology with rome, though.

Yes, I think you should visit an Orthodox church. What else would be the point of all your posting and Googling?

we are probably misunderstanding each other. not sure it's worth hashing out.

and i can't think of anything id say the orthodox are heretical in. that is a significant to me.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
you said yourself that there are variations of beliefs among the orthodox.

If I did, this is not the same as saying there is heresy. What, to you, is heresy?

Quote
the first seven council thing can make sense as a broad approach, but when you get down to it it seems pretty arbitrary. there must be more to it. perhaps there is something i dont see.

What you may be missing is the consensus of your millions of Christian brothers and sisters, here and in Heaven, that the Ecumenical Councils (however many one might say there were) were of vital importance to the faith and were the provision of the Holy Spirit. I'd suggest reading some positive, pious books on the subject to enrich your understanding.

my personal stance towards heresy is that it is deviation from normal belief. i could see, and see this variation on google, that heresy is actually "significant" deviation, not any deviation.

i would like to see more development on the fundamental belief v not idea though. i can see papal infallibility as fundamental, but i dont see how these things are squared up with the orthodox among themselves.

the filoque debate seems less fundamental than contraception, yet the orthodox make the filoque into more than i think is necessary. and, im sure the contraception point is fundamental enough to at least some orthodox, to want to start throwing heresy claims around. how do you survive that and not communion with rome? should we consider even grades between levels of beliefs that are all fundamental?

I'm sorry, but it's not like that at all. Orthodox are quite satisfied with the Councils as, to use your term, the fundamental belief. Anathemas are not flying thru the air in Orthodox circles, no. What you think you see on Google is your concern, not the Church's. Why not go to Divine Liturgy instead?

i know the orthodox are not throwing around heresy on contraception, but i might suppose it could be. if they could but dont, on a fundamental issue... why do they choose to stay separated from rome, on that fundamental issue? i mean i can see there could be grades of fundamental issues, but still.

No, you were asking how we manage to stay one Church with all the accusations of heresy from one to another of us. That's just -- fantasy. Now you're responding as tho I said we have no heresies we agree upon -- well, sure, I think we don't, but that's a different matter.

But as to that matter -- whether the Orthodox are heretics -- now that you've raised it explicitly, why don't you lay out the extent of your concerns? In the Orthodox-Catholic discussion subforum of course.

Quote
i do like your advice, though. visiting an orthodox place like i did when i was younger and less informed but just starting to question things. make concrete steps in my life instead of intetellectualzing it all. i am beginning to worry more about what the orthodox think, instead of rome. like when someone said i could be old catholic... i was worrying more about the orthodox church than rome. still have some lingering psychology with rome, though.

Yes, I think you should visit an Orthodox church. What else would be the point of all your posting and Googling?

we are probably misunderstanding each other. not sure it's worth hashing out.

and i can't think of anything id say the orthodox are heretical in. that is a significant to me.

Well, then, glory to God! Still hie thee to a Divine Liturgy.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Čtec

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Faith: Orthodox
I think papal infallibility can be solved if it is changed. If we say that Pope of Rome is infallible when confirming the decision of the Ecumenical Council. But only when confirming it.
What bothers me most about Roman-Catholics is their distasteful modernistic Liturgy. We should focus on that. They need old Mass said in Native Languages without drums and electric guitars.
"On Mount Konjuh the wind blows, sings. The leafs chant sad songs. Maples and frasers! Pines and birches are swinging together.
The night has put all forest in to black. Mount Konjuh roars, rocks are breaking!
Dead comrade, Pustinja's miner,  being buried by the company of proleters"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyzGJMbHg0E

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,691
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: POC, but my heart belongs to Antioch
I think papal infallibility can be solved if it is changed. If we say that Pope of Rome is infallible when confirming the decision of the Ecumenical Council. But only when confirming it.
That's an interesting idea.

What bothers me most about Roman-Catholics is their distasteful modernistic Liturgy. We should focus on that. They need old Mass said in Native Languages without drums and electric guitars.
Actually, they should return to their old Liturgies (plural, since they have at least a few local ones, that are very limited now) and - if it's possible - in shape(s) before the Trident.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline n8nrgmi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
i dont know how much that method would really mean anything, to say the pope is infallible when confirming a council. it could just as easily say he's infallible when joining the council, or you could put no emphasis on infalliblity on him alone at all. right?

Offline juliogb

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 776
I'm not that interested in reunite orthodox and rcc to be honest, they have so much internal problems with modernism, child abuse cases, charismaticism, liberation theology....there are so many problems that I don't understand why some orthodox people are so worried in being in communion with the roman church again. I'd be way more concerned in solving orthodox diferences with the OO.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,370
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
cardinal ratzinger, later pope benedict, now emeritus pope below.

basically, it's a model for how a relationship with the orthodox could be. that is, there's no condemnation of them, just a pius silence on papal infallibility. and, it is expected that whatever beliefs the easterns differ on, they should allow that it is possible for Rome to not be heretical. the idea, it was said, was that there shouldn't be more requirred of soemone who would have passed as christian in the earliest church, than if they were alive today. that is, they would have passed as a full christian then, but now because of their thoughts on infallibility of rome, are not considered christian.... and that this shouldn't be the case

it looks like the catholic church should be the one avoiding the communion, to me. they wouldn't want to lead people into thinking it's okay to not follow the pope. if the catholic church were willing to do this, why would the orthodox church insist on separation and severing unity, just to call out heresy? it's not like all the orthodox churches agree on everything, either, i'm sure. why are the issues that separate them, so major?


4.22.2008 "The Ratzinger Proposal"
Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse. Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say, nevertheless, that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today. After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and people of Constantinople as “very Christian and orthodox”, although their concept of the Roman primacy was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

Such a mutual act of acceptance and recognition, in the Catholicity that is common to and still possessed by each side, is assuredly no light matter. It is an act of self-conquest, of self-denunciation and, certainly, also of self-discovery. It is an act that cannot be brought about by diplomacy but must be a spiritual undertaking of the whole Church in both East and West. If what is theologically possible is also to be actually possible in the Church, the theological aspect must be spiritually prepared and spiritually accepted. My diagnosis of the relationship between East and West in the Church is as follows: from a theological perspective, the union of the Churches of East and West is fundamentally possible, but the spiritual preparation is not yet sufficiently far advanced and, therefore, not yet ready in practice. When I say it is fundamentally possible from a theological perspective, I do not overlook the fact that, on closer inspection, a number of obstacles still exist with respect to the theological possibility: from the Filioque to the question of the indissolubility of marriage. Despite these difficulties, some of which are present more strongly in the West, some in the East, we must learn that unity, for its part, is a Christian truth, an essentially Christian concept, of so high a rank that it can be sacrificed only to safeguard what is most fundamental, not where the way to it is obstructed by formulations and practices that, however important they may be, do not destroy community in the faith of the Fathers and in the basic form of the Church as they saw her."

– Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), pp. 198-199. (source)
You're presupposing something that is a non issue for us. Our leader is our current bishop.  If he fails to produce fruit. We just move to the next one. We dont have a concept of ultimate leader. Accept our relationship  with christ.
Im aware there are a lot of people out there that have a need to belong to a greater group. Its labeled as fanaticism. If you feel you are experiencing these feelings. I suggest you find someone to help you cope. Its not healthy to cling onto this type of behavior.  Its similar to alcoholism.

I think you're way out of line. The Church is central to the experience of God on earth, and includes the Saints in heaven. How do you justify your responses regarding the Church, here and in another thread, as Orthodox?

Tell that to saint mark of Ephesus. Each individual bishop carries with him all of Orthodoxy. Its a protection mechanism that protects the church from going rogue. Im sure god built it this way for a reason.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
I'm not that interested in reunite orthodox and rcc to be honest, they have so much internal problems with modernism, child abuse cases, charismaticism, liberation theology....there are so many problems that I don't understand why some orthodox people are so worried in being in communion with the roman church again. I'd be way more concerned in solving orthodox diferences with the OO.

Amen.
I'm done.

Online Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,403
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
the contraception point is a good example. i can see that being a fundamental belief. how does orthodoxy stay in communion with itself, given it's so disputed?
it may not be the fundamental issue i'm making it out to be, though.

It's not.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
cardinal ratzinger, later pope benedict, now emeritus pope below.

basically, it's a model for how a relationship with the orthodox could be. that is, there's no condemnation of them, just a pius silence on papal infallibility. and, it is expected that whatever beliefs the easterns differ on, they should allow that it is possible for Rome to not be heretical. the idea, it was said, was that there shouldn't be more requirred of soemone who would have passed as christian in the earliest church, than if they were alive today. that is, they would have passed as a full christian then, but now because of their thoughts on infallibility of rome, are not considered christian.... and that this shouldn't be the case

it looks like the catholic church should be the one avoiding the communion, to me. they wouldn't want to lead people into thinking it's okay to not follow the pope. if the catholic church were willing to do this, why would the orthodox church insist on separation and severing unity, just to call out heresy? it's not like all the orthodox churches agree on everything, either, i'm sure. why are the issues that separate them, so major?


4.22.2008 "The Ratzinger Proposal"
Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse. Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say, nevertheless, that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today. After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and people of Constantinople as “very Christian and orthodox”, although their concept of the Roman primacy was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

Such a mutual act of acceptance and recognition, in the Catholicity that is common to and still possessed by each side, is assuredly no light matter. It is an act of self-conquest, of self-denunciation and, certainly, also of self-discovery. It is an act that cannot be brought about by diplomacy but must be a spiritual undertaking of the whole Church in both East and West. If what is theologically possible is also to be actually possible in the Church, the theological aspect must be spiritually prepared and spiritually accepted. My diagnosis of the relationship between East and West in the Church is as follows: from a theological perspective, the union of the Churches of East and West is fundamentally possible, but the spiritual preparation is not yet sufficiently far advanced and, therefore, not yet ready in practice. When I say it is fundamentally possible from a theological perspective, I do not overlook the fact that, on closer inspection, a number of obstacles still exist with respect to the theological possibility: from the Filioque to the question of the indissolubility of marriage. Despite these difficulties, some of which are present more strongly in the West, some in the East, we must learn that unity, for its part, is a Christian truth, an essentially Christian concept, of so high a rank that it can be sacrificed only to safeguard what is most fundamental, not where the way to it is obstructed by formulations and practices that, however important they may be, do not destroy community in the faith of the Fathers and in the basic form of the Church as they saw her."

– Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), pp. 198-199. (source)
You're presupposing something that is a non issue for us. Our leader is our current bishop.  If he fails to produce fruit. We just move to the next one. We dont have a concept of ultimate leader. Accept our relationship  with christ.
Im aware there are a lot of people out there that have a need to belong to a greater group. Its labeled as fanaticism. If you feel you are experiencing these feelings. I suggest you find someone to help you cope. Its not healthy to cling onto this type of behavior.  Its similar to alcoholism.

I think you're way out of line. The Church is central to the experience of God on earth, and includes the Saints in heaven. How do you justify your responses regarding the Church, here and in another thread, as Orthodox?

Tell that to saint mark of Ephesus. Each individual bishop carries with him all of Orthodoxy. Its a protection mechanism that protects the church from going rogue. Im sure god built it this way for a reason.

Not what I was responding to at all.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
I'm not that interested in reunite orthodox and rcc to be honest, they have so much internal problems with modernism, child abuse cases, charismaticism, liberation theology....there are so many problems that I don't understand why some orthodox people are so worried in being in communion with the roman church again. I'd be way more concerned in solving orthodox diferences with the OO.

There are a couple of good reasons to desire reunion. One being that Christ desires, commands, and expects Christians to be one; in fact, he even said that by this means Christ is believed and the Father glorified. Another being the salvation of 1.2 billion souls presently looking to Rome as a shepherd. Now, inherent in these reasons are also cautions: reunion that would not truly glorify God or save souls is unacceptable and counterproductive.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
I'm not that interested in reunite orthodox and rcc to be honest, they have so much internal problems with modernism, child abuse cases, charismaticism, liberation theology....there are so many problems that I don't understand why some orthodox people are so worried in being in communion with the roman church again. I'd be way more concerned in solving orthodox diferences with the OO.

There are a couple of good reasons to desire reunion. One being that Christ desires, commands, and expects Christians to be one; in fact, he even said that by this means Christ is believed and the Father glorified. Another being the salvation of 1.2 billion souls presently looking to Rome as a shepherd. Now, inherent in these reasons are also cautions: reunion that would not truly glorify God or save souls is unacceptable and counterproductive.

Eh... while I agree with this post in terms of ideology, I don't know if Christ meant that "all may be one" was a prayer that went unheard of; the Church is One. One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism. Rather, Rome right now are of the ones who are called to the Feast of the King; however, if they desire to come with improper clothes, they will be bound up and cast outside unto eternal darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. They are the one lost sheep whom we must seek after, but let us pray that Christ the Good Shepherd may carry them back to the Fold. Although all things are possible with God, it is prideful to claim to know God's will in terms of when and how Rome would be converted, if they God ever desires it to be so.

I would desire reunion, but given how bad Rome has gotten not only from Modernism but the Papal abuses of power (e.g., indulgences,) reunion that is legitimate would need a miracle of repentance, of which we see very little or backhanded apologies.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 03:34:59 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
I'm not that interested in reunite orthodox and rcc to be honest, they have so much internal problems with modernism, child abuse cases, charismaticism, liberation theology....there are so many problems that I don't understand why some orthodox people are so worried in being in communion with the roman church again. I'd be way more concerned in solving orthodox diferences with the OO.

There are a couple of good reasons to desire reunion. One being that Christ desires, commands, and expects Christians to be one; in fact, he even said that by this means Christ is believed and the Father glorified. Another being the salvation of 1.2 billion souls presently looking to Rome as a shepherd. Now, inherent in these reasons are also cautions: reunion that would not truly glorify God or save souls is unacceptable and counterproductive.

Eh... while I agree with this post in terms of ideology, I don't know if Christ meant that "all may be one" was a prayer that went unheard of; the Church is One. One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism. Rather, Rome right now are of the ones who are called to the Feast of the King; however, if they desire to come with improper clothes, they will be bound up and cast outside unto eternal darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. They are the one lost sheep whom we must seek after, but let us pray that Christ the Good Shepherd may carry them back to the Fold. Although all things are possible with God, it is prideful to claim to know God's will in terms of when and how Rome would be converted, if they God ever desires it to be so.

I would desire reunion, but given how bad Rome has gotten not only from Modernism but the Papal abuses of power (e.g., indulgences,) reunion that is legitimate would need a miracle of repentance, of which we see very little or backhanded apologies.

You can slice it however you want, and lay blame wherever you think it's deserved, but my point is more basic than any of that: Christ desires, perhaps requires, Christians to be one.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,254
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
I think papal infallibility can be solved if it is changed. If we say that Pope of Rome is infallible when confirming the decision of the Ecumenical Council. But only when confirming it.
What bothers me most about Roman-Catholics is their distasteful modernistic Liturgy. We should focus on that. They need old Mass said in Native Languages without drums and electric guitars.

The part about Mass in the vernacular might not endear you to a lot of Trad Catholics.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,254
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
i also question how people were able to advance realistically theologically when they didn't have the internet back then.

I'm sorry, but this made me lol. 90% of the time Google is just quantity over quality. If I was one of the chosen few literates in Antiquity I feel like I'd have been much better off going to the library of a major city. Those who couldn't read still had priests and monks to talk to (who admittedly were often ignorant themselves in rural areas, but then so is Google scattershot).

i guess there's some wisdom to the idea that Jesus won't lead the church to error on fundamental stuff, and obeying one's priest is important. i question when the priest can be right or wrong, and the fundamental v not distionctions though.

Probably depends on what he's telling you to do. Is he telling you to sacrifice a dog? Don't do it. Is he telling you to use a condom (or not)? You won't be punished by God for obeying.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,403
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
I think papal infallibility can be solved if it is changed. If we say that Pope of Rome is infallible when confirming the decision of the Ecumenical Council. But only when confirming it.
What bothers me most about Roman-Catholics is their distasteful modernistic Liturgy. We should focus on that. They need old Mass said in Native Languages without drums and electric guitars.

The part about Mass in the vernacular might not endear you to a lot of Trad Catholics.

Neither would reunion.  :police:
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,254
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
I think papal infallibility can be solved if it is changed. If we say that Pope of Rome is infallible when confirming the decision of the Ecumenical Council. But only when confirming it.
What bothers me most about Roman-Catholics is their distasteful modernistic Liturgy. We should focus on that. They need old Mass said in Native Languages without drums and electric guitars.

The part about Mass in the vernacular might not endear you to a lot of Trad Catholics.

Neither would reunion.  :police:

True.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,328
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
Is it nuance, or contradiction disguised by sophistry?
I cannot fathom the intentions, but it's impossible to reconcile Florence with VII. 

For instance, since only the baptized may fall in heresy, how can they be damned by Florence as outside the Church, yet remain in the Church by VII because they are among the baptized?  Florence unconditionally damns Jews, yet VII reserves a place for them. 

VII contradicts other councils besides Florence.  Either VII is fallacious and deserves to be cast into the dustbin of Church history with the return to the practices that proceeded it; or the Catholic Church does not teach what she's always taught and deserves to be unwound to the practices that preceded the Great Schism.

Of course, a Roman Catholic doesn't need to wait until this happens and return to the Church before the Great Schism at the nearest Orthodox church.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 01:16:15 AM by Sharbel »
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,328
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
I think papal infallibility can be solved if it is changed. If we say that Pope of Rome is infallible when confirming the decision of the Ecumenical Council. But only when confirming it.
+1 

Though I'm not sure that this would allow Rome to save face.  Not that I care about how the Roman curia would feel, but it might scandalize way too many Catholic Christians.

What bothers me most about Roman-Catholics is their distasteful modernistic Liturgy. We should focus on that. They need old Mass said in Native Languages without drums and electric guitars.
In my home country, the Novus Ordo liturgy was not introduced overnight as in the US.  For three years the Tridentine liturgy was celebrated in the vernacular and then the new order of the Mass was introduced.  It still remains one of the most beautiful and faithful translations of the Tridentine Roman Missal.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,328
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
There are a couple of good reasons to desire reunion. One being that Christ desires, commands, and expects Christians to be one; in fact, he even said that by this means Christ is believed and the Father glorified. Another being the salvation of 1.2 billion souls presently looking to Rome as a shepherd. Now, inherent in these reasons are also cautions: reunion that would not truly glorify God or save souls is unacceptable and counterproductive.
+1
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Čtec

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Faith: Orthodox
Did i just solve problem of papal infallibility or what?
"On Mount Konjuh the wind blows, sings. The leafs chant sad songs. Maples and frasers! Pines and birches are swinging together.
The night has put all forest in to black. Mount Konjuh roars, rocks are breaking!
Dead comrade, Pustinja's miner,  being buried by the company of proleters"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyzGJMbHg0E

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 621
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Nice op article. Agreed. As for Vatican II and Florence, the distinction between formal heretics and Christians raised in material heresy is well known and goes back to St. Augustine. "Such are not to be accounted heretics", the Doctor wrote, who may have inculpably been raised in heresy. As for the Pope confirming Councils, a la Pope Leo, sure that could work, though the Pope would have to have something like a line item veto power also, as Pope Leo exercised with regard to canon 28 when confirming EC4.
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 922
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
As for the Pope confirming Councils, a la Pope Leo, sure that could work, though the Pope would have to have something like a line item veto power also, as Pope Leo exercised with regard to canon 28 when confirming EC4.

Very funny.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy