C
ciero
Guest
Boy…I’m an Eastern Catholic and I reject those things…I guess that makes me a heretical Eastern Catholic.
- Status
B
Biedrik
Guest
You reject established Church dogma?Boy…I’m an Eastern Catholic and I reject those things…I guess that makes me a heretical Eastern Catholic.
C
ciero
Guest
As an Eastern Catholic those “dogmas” have no place in our spirituality or tradition.
S
sidbrown
Guest
In general then, do Eastern Catholics reject papal infallibility ? Or is it only you who do so?Boy…I’m an Eastern Catholic and I reject those things…I guess that makes me a heretical Eastern Catholic.
Thanks.
B
Biedrik
Guest
Teaching trumps tradition. I am aware that things like the Immaculate Conception do not really work within the Eastern understanding of original sin, but what about papal infallibility? It’s Church teaching, plain and simple. One may not allow for certain things not really working within the theology of the East, but flat out rejecting these things? That’s denying Church teaching.
Also, they’re dogmas, not “dogmas”.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I find it interesteing that Orthodox, and Old Catholics of PNCC affiliation, are welcome (even invited) to present themselves for communion in your church even though they openly deny these RC teachings.
Is it your opinion that an Orthodox Christian cannot be in communion with Rome without first affirming these teachings?
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Thank you for the . . . compliment sir!I see your rhetorical skills have not waned a bit in all those years.
But I think it’s a fair question . . .
If a publishing house or organization, of any kind, has something I would like to buy - am I morally supporting the aims of that organization by so doing?
Alex
B
Biedrik
Guest
If I remember correctly, this is because they are able to receive absolution, and thus can have souls free from any serious sin. However, being able to receive the Eucharist and being in communion with Rome are not one and the same. Different standards apply. Being able to receive communion means that you are able to have your sins forgiven by going to confession. Being in communion means you are a part of the Church, and thus by extension a part of its teachings.
As for whether or not one can be in communion with Rome without affirming the Immaculate Conception, well I’ve heard the explanations that within Eastern theology it doesn’t really make any sense. In cases like that, I think one can certainly say that they need not “affirm” it per se, but certainly one cannot outright reject it (which is what ciero is doing if I am not mistaken), given that it is a doctrine of the Church. And if one is in communion with Rome, one could certainly not deny that within the context of Latin theology, the Immaculate Conception is true.
C
ciero
Guest
OK…I’ll bite…so if its OK for an Eastern Catholic to not accept the Immaculate Conception even though it is part of the churches teaching…then why is it not ok for an Eastern Catholic to accept the infallibility of the pope which also makes no sense within the teaching of the Eastern church?
Now my bishop has no problem with me rejecting these teachings or does my spiritual father…and in my mind these guys out rank you Biedrik.
B
Biedrik
Guest
Ahhh, the appeal to authority fallacy. Will it never stop annoying me?OK…I’ll bite…so if its OK for an Eastern Catholic to not accept the Immaculate Conception even though it is part of the churches teaching…then why is it not ok for an Eastern Catholic to accept the infallibility of the pope which also makes no sense within the teaching of the Eastern church?
Now my bishop has no problem with me rejecting these teachings or does my spiritual father…and in my mind these guys out rank you Biedrik.
Anyways, in regards to what you said, I will admit some ignorance to exactly why Eastern theology doesn’t really work with the Immaculate Conception. From what I’ve heard, it merely isn’t necessary because of a different understanding of original sin. Correct me if I’m wrong here ciero, but from what I see it’s less of a matter of contradiction about the matter of the Immaculate Conception, but more so a lack of need. It is somewhat like how you in the East include the epiclesis, while we in the West make it implicit. It’s not that we reject the idea of having an epiclesis, or that it somehow contradicts Western belief. It’s that that it’s not really needed for us. However, if my understanding of Eastern theology on the matter of the Immaculate Conception is wrong, then I welcome correction.
However, if I am right, then that’s different from papal infallibility. Papal infallibility isn’t a matter of whether or not an understanding of theology “needs” it. It’s a teaching declared by a council. One cannot disagree with doctrine promulgated by an Ecumenical Council. It’s just…silly.
C
ciero
Guest
Pray tell…which of the 7 Ecumenical councils promulgated papal infallibility?
F
Formosus
Guest
Yes, an Ecumenical Council that proclaimed the infallibility of the Pope…that was proclaimed an Ecumenical Council by the Pope that it proclaimed was infallible. You are right, it is a bit silly to disagree with that doctrine.
.
C
ciero
Guest
Very well put Formosus!Yes, an Ecumenical Council that proclaimed the infallibility of the Pope…that was proclaimed an Ecumenical Council by the Pope that it proclaimed was infallible. You are right, it is a bit silly to disagree with that doctrine.
B
Biedrik
Guest
Yes, an Ecumenical Council that proclaimed the infallibility of the Pope…that was proclaimed an Ecumenical Council by the Pope that it proclaimed was infallible. You are right, it is a bit silly to disagree with that doctrine.
Last I checked, the Catholic Church had twenty one Ecumenical Councils, not seven. Unless you would claim that the Church is wrong in proclaiming the Fourth Council of Constantinople, First Council of the Lateran, Second Council of the Lateran, Third Council of the Lateran, Fourth Council of the Lateran, First Council of Lyon, Second Council of Lyon, Council of Vienne, Council of Constance, Council of Basel, Ferrara and Florence, Fifth Council of the Lateran, Council of Trent, First Vatican Council, and the Second Vatican Council as Ecumenical Councils, in which case you’re contradicting Church teaching.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I suppose it depends on how you pick your sources to check.
Some say the Melkite Greek Catholics will only positively affirm seven, and the full list does not appear to have ever been infallibly defined
.Some Popes (I don’t have time to check for a reference right now) have called some later western Councils as a “General Council of the West”, which incidently is also what Arles is called, and as important as Arles was, it never was considered Ecumenical because Constantine could only call western bishops to it.
From a website of the Melkite Greek Catholic church …
ALL Catholics accept the definitions, creeds, canon laws, etc. of the first seven Ecumenical Councils.
The early Catholic Church held seven Ecumenical Councils under the inspiration of the Holy God the Holy Spirit. These seven Ecumenical Councils are the seven great meetings that were called to give expression to the basic faith of the Catholic Church. The first seven Ecumenical Council produced definitions, creeds, canon laws, etc.
The handling of the subject does seem to be a bit mercurial. There does not seem to be any positive rejection of later councils on the page, however this is not the first time I have seen the sentiment expressed by Eastern Catholics.
C
ciero
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biedrik
Last I checked, the Catholic Church had twenty one Ecumenical Councils, not seven. Unless you would claim that the Church is wrong in proclaiming the Fourth Council of Constantinople, First Council of the Lateran, Second Council of the Lateran, Third Council of the Lateran, Fourth Council of the Lateran, First Council of Lyon, Second Council of Lyon, Council of Vienne, Council of Constance, Council of Basel, Ferrara and Florence, Fifth Council of the Lateran, Council of Trent, First Vatican Council, and the Second Vatican Council as Ecumenical Councils, in which case you’re contradicting Church teaching.
Our present pope has stated that there have only been 7 ecumenical councils, all the rest are local councils of the western church…so as I asked earlier which of the 7 ecumenical councils have proclaimed the pope infallible?
Originally Posted by Biedrik
Last I checked, the Catholic Church had twenty one Ecumenical Councils, not seven. Unless you would claim that the Church is wrong in proclaiming the Fourth Council of Constantinople, First Council of the Lateran, Second Council of the Lateran, Third Council of the Lateran, Fourth Council of the Lateran, First Council of Lyon, Second Council of Lyon, Council of Vienne, Council of Constance, Council of Basel, Ferrara and Florence, Fifth Council of the Lateran, Council of Trent, First Vatican Council, and the Second Vatican Council as Ecumenical Councils, in which case you’re contradicting Church teaching.
Our present pope has stated that there have only been 7 ecumenical councils, all the rest are local councils of the western church…so as I asked earlier which of the 7 ecumenical councils have proclaimed the pope infallible?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
This makes no sense. Anathama was declared on those who refused to accept Papal Infallibility. How is it that such an anathama only applies to part of the church?
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
That’s an odd statement.
L
Little_Boy_Lost
Guest
Both Pope Benedict and Father Roman Cholij in two different documents from the Vatican Website Refer to the councils of the west as either “General Councils” or that the west considers them “Ecumenical”. Both implying there is a precedence for the 7 Ecumenical Councils over all further councils.
It seems this issue though is still up for debate and not entirely settled. Nevertheless, as we are One Catholic Church, with various body parts, the same fundamental truths are expressed. We may not have to “accept those councils” and their canons and everything from them. But the faith we all hold together, should be the same. Just as the councils of the Assyrian Church formed her, and our Chaldean brothers, they have little bearing on Rome, but they have shaped the praxis and view of the Chaldean tradition.
On example. The immaculate conception. It’s full of western terminology and theology. But what is the truth? That the theotokos was all blameless and pure through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and her faith (We sing praises of this in our Hymns to her all the time). How that happened, when it happened, we really don’t know. But this mystery, however it happen, seems to have had no negative effect on Christ.
We Byzantines have known this all along =p
It seems this issue though is still up for debate and not entirely settled. Nevertheless, as we are One Catholic Church, with various body parts, the same fundamental truths are expressed. We may not have to “accept those councils” and their canons and everything from them. But the faith we all hold together, should be the same. Just as the councils of the Assyrian Church formed her, and our Chaldean brothers, they have little bearing on Rome, but they have shaped the praxis and view of the Chaldean tradition.
On example. The immaculate conception. It’s full of western terminology and theology. But what is the truth? That the theotokos was all blameless and pure through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and her faith (We sing praises of this in our Hymns to her all the time). How that happened, when it happened, we really don’t know. But this mystery, however it happen, seems to have had no negative effect on Christ.
We Byzantines have known this all along =p
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Let me just say this. This poster does not speak for all Eastern Catholics.Boy…I’m an Eastern Catholic and I reject those things…I guess that makes me a heretical Eastern Catholic.
What Eastern Catholics reject is the Roman explanations using western theological thought. The Dogmas are not denied just the Roman definitions. We have our own way of expressing them.
- Status