bartholomew-to-reinvigorate-dialogue-with-catholics

[Reuben_J]

what about this as a possible compromise on papal infallibility?

the pope can’t, by himself, declare anything infallibly.

however, he has veto power over anything that the other bishops might collectively want to declare as an infallible teaching.

just a thought.

Which is what he has been doing except that it is not his habit to veto the voice of his bishops. On the other hand it is his prerogative to veto any heretic teaching and declaration, he being the defender of the Church.

 

[Mickey]

The biggest obstacles to reconciliation is still the wound due to the reality of history and petty nationalism.

Nonsense.

 

[Mickey]

The correction in the second paragraph is not what you said earlier.

The poster said that Russia needed to be converted. Converted to what? Russia was brutalized by atheist communists and the faith of the people and the holy Orthodox Church stood strong. Many holy martyrs for the faith were created in Russia. Russia is an Orthodox country…they do not need to be converted to anything.

My point stands.

 

[Mickey]

On the other hand it is his prerogative to veto any heretic teaching and declaration, he being the defender of the Church.

What happens when the Pope himself is a heretic…like Honorius.

 

[Reuben_J]

Nonsense.

Why?

 

[Reuben_J]

The correction in the second paragraph is not what you said earlier. It could be misleading if not been pointed out.

The poster said that Russia needed to be converted. Converted to what? Russia was brutalized by atheist communists and the faith of the people and the holy Orthodox Church stood strong. Many holy martyrs for the faith were created in Russia. Russia is an Orthodox country…they do not need to be converted to anything.

My point stands.

Your correction is alright except it seems more like backtracking from the post that you are trying to correct.

 

[Reuben_J]

What happens when the Pope himself is a heretic…like Honorius.

Good question. The Church is protected from heresy. Heretic Popes had never made a mark or tangible change in the life of the Church. The office of the Papacy is more protected than we could ever have known.

 

[Mickey]

Your correction is alright

Thanks.

except it seems more like backtracking

Not at all. But you can believe what you like.

Some figures say that the country is 70 percent Orthodox…I have seen sources that say higher. But many of the people had to learn their faith again…many do not attend Liturgy regularly. If any type of conversion needs to happen…it is a re-conversion to Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[Mickey]

The Church is protected from heresy.

And yet Honorius was declared a heretic.

 

[Reuben_J]

Thanks.
Not at all. But you can believe what you like.

Some figures say that the country is 70 percent Orthodox…I have seen sources that say higher. But many of the people had to learn their faith again…many do not attend Liturgy regularly. If any type of conversion needs to happen…it is a re-conversion to Holy Orthodoxy.

I have no dog in this hunt.i am saying as how a reader would read that post. Anyway you corrected it. It would be more objective had you not been very defensive

 

[Mickey]

I have no dog in this hunt.

Then why do you keep barking?

 

[Reuben_J]

And yet Honorius was declared a heretic.

If he had been declared heretic then it only shows the Church is protected and that she does not accept heresy.

 

[Reuben_J]

Then why do you keep barking?

Because you keep on defending? Are you angry bro?

 

[Mickey]

Because you keep on defending?

You keep attacking a trivial thing.

Are you angry bro?

No. Are you?..bro?

 

[Mickey]

If he had been declared heretic then it only shows the Church is protected and that she does not accept heresy.

But isn’t the Pope supposed to be protected from heresy? Ah…but we are way off topic now.

 

[Reuben_J]

You keep attacking a trivial thing.
No. Are you?..bro?

It depends. Some people take honesty seriously and not something as trivial. I am glad you’re not angry after being pointed out.

I think there is another post have not answered. I would be glad to know why you called my assertion nonsense.

 

[Schism_hater]

By the way, there are some things I believe the Orthodox should concede. First of all, I think that the primacy of the Pope of Rome is more than merely a primacy of honor. I do not believe the Orthodox will ever accept universal ordinary jurisdiction, but I do believe they should accept that the primacy of the Pope of Rome includes some sort of “appellate” role that goes beyond a mere primacy of honor.

Some prominent Orthodox theologians have accepted an “appellate” role for the Bishop of Rome, I believe. See for example Olivier Clement, You Are Peter.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Some prominent Orthodox theologians have accepted an “appellate” role for the Bishop of Rome, I believe. See for example Olivier Clement, You Are Peter.

It is part of canon law. I don’t know of any Orthodox historian who would deny that fact. But since Rome is no longer an Orthodox see, this role has passed canonically to the bishop of Constantinople

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yet, somehow, papal infallibility, as a matter of dogma, seemed not to be necessary until the 19th century. Why is it so necessary now, as a matter of dogma, that must be believed?

…]

Yet, again, these beliefs were not held to be necessary as a matter of dogma, until very recently. Why the necessity, as a matter of dogma, now?

And the divinity of the Son was not put beyond question until the First Ecumenical Council in the 300s!

It is so necessary now to believe because the Church in Her wisdom has so decided that it must be believed. It’s always been a reality. And the Church has simply decided to put the matter beyond any question. It must be believed because the Church has told us that it must. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

This sort of respons is intolerably arrogant. The Orthodox are so stupid that they’ve just understood. Really? That just won’t fly, particularly in light of the fact that the CCC (246) itself affirms that the filioque teaches exactly that to which the Orthodox object, namely, that the Son, together with the Father, is the source of the Holy Spirit, as from one principle.

I’ve read conflicting accounts. If it is merely a matter of semantics—which many believe it to be—then my comment was entirely valid. If it is a case of a denial of the double-procession of the Holy Ghost as from one principle… then certainly the problem goes beyond semantics.

In that case instead of recommending a Latin dictionary I would rather prescribe prayer and fasting that they may abandon their error and assent to the immemorial teaching of the Church.

This sort of triumphalistic rhetoric gets us nowhere. What purpose does it serve, other than to make us Catholics look insufferably arrogant?

And I couldn’t care less about your judgment as to whether I “remain in a sound orthodox position.” Your hypertriumphalistic, ultramontane, anti-Orthodox venom renders your judgments utterly meaningless to me.

Your profile field reads Eastern Catholic. I presumed you were a Catholic in communion with Rome. If you are… well it’s clearly obvious that you care more for being paly with the Eastern Orthodox than you do for the truths of the Faith.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is directed toward anyone here who can stand to hear it. NONE of us here are in any position to say “my church won’t budge!” or to decide whether someone else is in good standing with his church based on their level of agreement with the originator’s opinion or belief. You are not in a position to make that decision. Your positions on each and every item of discussion are based on your own personal understanding. Admittedly, your understanding is probably deeper than mine, but I do know that you are not the one to say what a Church will or won’t ever do or who is or is not a 'catholic (or Orthodox) in good standing." It’s been said on this forum that if the early Christians saw the Church today they wouldn’t recognize it. Granted there are matters that won’t change, like for example, the real presence, etc. However the Churches have shown that some things can change (yes, even in the Orthodox Church) over time.
We all get each other’s fervor for his or her faith, nobody is questioning that. A little reason and kindness would go a long way.

Question. If someone here was discussing a reunion between say Calvinists and the Church, and the Calvinist insist that first the Catholic must back-down on the doctrine of the Real Presence… and the Catholic said that no, that will never happen, the Church will never do that… would you be saying what you said above?

Papal infallibility, the Bishop of Rome’s authority over the Church, the Marian dogmas, etc. are on the same level as the doctrine of the Real Presence.

I’m perfectly within my liberty to say that the Church will never abandon these teachings. Anymore that tomorrow the Pope would release an encyclical denying the Real Presence in union with every Catholic bishop in the world!