Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[JMJ_coder]

To bind what? If it is the truth, why does it need binding? Will loosing a truth make it untruth?

For one, to bind upon the consciences of the faithful. The faithful are obliged to believe all that Holy Church proposes for our belief (cf. CCC 1814).

 

[joe371]

Hahahah! All history is mythologized. Do you also buy the myth that all Ecumenical Councils needed Papal Approval before it is considered Ecumenical? C’mon. Speck meets plank here.

Hypothetical: If another Orthodox Ecumenical Council became necessary due to some sort of heretical movement, (as was the case in the early church) and therefore convoked by the Orthodox Patriarchs, what would happen if a resolution acceptable to everyone, could not be found? And, does the orthodox laity get involved in the decision-making process?

 

[ConstantineTG]

For one, to bind upon the consciences of the faithful. The faithful are obliged to believe all that Holy Church proposes for our belief (cf. CCC 1814).

We are to seek the truth always. Why should one force what he believes is the truth on others? What if that person turns out wrong?

Hypothetical: If another Orthodox Ecumenical Council became necessary due to some sort of heretical movement, (as was the case in the early church) and therefore convoked by the Orthodox Patriarchs, what would happen if a resolution acceptable to everyone, could not be found? And, does the orthodox laity get involved in the decision-making process?

Never happened before. Everything gets resolved somehow. Some councils finish peacefully and everyone in agreement, some turn into decades long argument. Others are completed and thought to be final only to be overturned later. One thing is for sure, councils are never “final”. Truth overrides everything. If we find out later on that the truth is other than what has been declared in a council, then that council is overturned.

By the way, there have already been pan-Orthodox councils that have been convened post-Great Schism that are binding on all Orthodox but are not called “Ecumenical”. There are difference of opinions on why we can no longer call a Church-wide council as “Ecumenical”, and no, it doesn’t have anything to do with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[joe371]

We are to seek the truth always. Why should one force what he believes is the truth on others? What if that person turns out wrong?

Never happened before. Everything gets resolved somehow. Some councils finish peacefully and everyone in agreement, some turn into decades long argument. Others are completed and thought to be final only to be overturned later. One thing is for sure, councils are never “final”. Truth overrides everything. If we find out later on that the truth is other than what has been declared in a council, then that council is overturned.

By the way, there have already been pan-Orthodox councils that have been convened post-Great Schism that are binding on all Orthodox but are not called “Ecumenical”. There are difference of opinions on why we can no longer call a Church-wide council as “Ecumenical”, and no, it doesn’t have anything to do with the Bishop of Rome.

Councils are never final. Strange. Regarding said councils does the orthodox laity get involved in the decision-making process?

 

[joe371]

We are to seek the truth always. Why should one force what he believes is the truth on others? What if that person turns out wrong?

The CC (if that is what you were implying) never forces their beliefs on anyone. People can say no thank you to the church to seek truth elsewhere.

 

[dvdjs]

Ah yes, because the fall of Constantinople completely explains the rejection of Florence…

So persistent with the straw man.

Just like the emperor, who installed men as the bishop of Constantinople, under the condition that they support the union. There simply is no telling (when speculating on the what if’s of history) what might have happened had something turned out differently; perhaps had the empire survived, it might have cast off the union again, just as it did in the aftermath of Second Lyons.

I don’t disagree. I am just looking for accuracy on the historical facts and balance and the avoidance of rank mythology in the interpretation of the facts.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Councils are never final. Strange. Regarding said councils does the orthodox laity get involved in the decision-making process?

By “never final”, I mean that it can always be overturned if found to be wrong. This concept of “infallibility” never existed in the First Millennium. Nobody says “this council is Ecumenical” and then that is it.

But of course when a council is done there is some sense of finality in that the canons are carried out, or further argued. They will deem it closed until proven otherwise. But my point it, it’s not “sealed” that it can never be proven otherwise.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The CC (if that is what you were implying) never forces their beliefs on anyone. People can say no thank you to the church to seek truth elsewhere.

Of course it does. If you want to be CC, then you have to accepts certain teachings.

 

[LionHeart777]

Of course it does. If you want to be CC, then you have to accepts certain teachings.

Isn’t the converse true if one wants to be an Eastern Orthodox Christian?

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Hahahah! All history is mythologized. Do you also buy the myth that all Ecumenical Councils needed Papal Approval before it is considered Ecumenical? C’mon. Speck meets plank here.

Of course, as you explained earlier, even one bishop dissenting could sink a council, or do you now want to have it both ways for your convenience.

Do you buy into the myth that a council has to be convoked by an emperor? Even though this novelty was foreign to the Apostolic Council which was the blueprint for all. It was also foreign to the Sanhedrin which was the model for the Apostolic council. But the Orthodox have even invented sacraments like the coronation of a byzantine emperor to justify it. Sacraments come from Christ, and I am positive he did not include the crowning of an emperor.

 

[Peter_J]

Of course it does. If you want to be CC, then you have to accepts certain teachings.

I think of myself as a C.

 

[JMJ_coder]

By “never final”, I mean that it can always be overturned if found to be wrong. This concept of “infallibility” never existed in the First Millennium. Nobody says “this council is Ecumenical” and then that is it.

But of course when a council is done there is some sense of finality in that the canons are carried out, or further argued. They will deem it closed until proven otherwise. But my point it, it’s not “sealed” that it can never be proven otherwise.

Do you have anything in the form of the writings of a Synod, the works of Saints, or the promulgation of Bishops that states this idea - or is it just your opinion?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Of course it does. If you want to be CC, then you have to accepts certain teachings.

Same for Eastern Orthodoxy - or would you be fine with an Orthodox Christian professing Arian beliefs?

 

[josie_L]

The predominance of that tendency has been strongly challenged in Orthodox circles. The idea of separation from God, which is what the “stain” is - and the impact of that separation in leaving us disoriented and liable to sin, is well represented among the Fathers. And in contemporary Orthodoxy.

In one of the psalms, 51 to be precise, David writes:

           "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me."

I would think this is a reference to the “stain” that the CC talks about.

 

[josie_L]

It was not a Church dividing issue, true. But today the various theologies of the West that spawned from Original Sin prevents any sort of union. In fact, Original Sin itself is a gigantic mountain that needs to be scaled towards union. Why was it not debated in the early Church? There are various opinions. Some even say that Rome’s adherence to the Augustinian view flew virtually under the radar of the East, and it may not have even developed as must until St. Aquinas who came well after the schism.

I was wondering why such an aversion to original sin, I believe that there are certain parts of the Bible that attest to it, furthermore, the fathers definitely speak of B.V. Mary as being immaculate (during conception):

East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor) says [O’Connor 97] before 749 [Homily on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in PG 96:664AB]:

Nature was defeated by grace and stopped, trembling, not daring to take precedence over it [grace]. Since the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to precede the product of grace; but remained sterile until grace had produced its fruit. O happy loins of Joachim, which had produced a germ which is all immaculate. O wondrous womb of Anne in which an all-holy child slowly grew and took shape!

East: Archbishop Theophylact of Ohrid [On the Presentation of the Blessed Mary 6 in PG 126:137A]: “She who surpassed all nature in purity and holiness, and who was justified from her mother’s womb, had to be exempt from a law made not for the just but for sinners.”

East: St. Andrew of Crete [Homily 1 on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in PG 97:809D-812]:

Today, Adam presents Mary to God as the first fruits of our nature… Today, humanity recovers the gift it had received when first formed by divine hands, and returns immaculate to its original nobility. The shame of sin had cast a shadow upon the splendor and charm of human nature; but when the Mother of Him Who is Beauty itself is born, this nature recovers in her person its ancient privileges, and is fashioned according to a perfect model, truly worthy of God. And this fashioning is a perfect restoration; this restoration is a divinization, and this divinization is an assimilation to the primitive state… In a word, the reformation of our nature begins today; the world, which had grown old, undergoes a transformation which is wholly divine, and receives the first fruits of its second creation.

West: Bishop St. Maximus of Turin [Lambruschini 78] says [Hom. V, ante Natale Domini in in PL 57:235D], “Mary was a fit dwelling for Christ, not because of the disposition of her body, but on account of original grace.” Latin: “Idoneum plane Maria Christo habitaculum non pro habitu corporis, sed pro gratiâ originali.”

West: Archbishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna (Doctor) says in 449 [Sermon 140 in PL 52:576A], “The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to Whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to Whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.”

catholicpatristics.blogspot.ca/2009/03/immaculate-conception.html

 

[josie_L]

Also, wanted to add, that just because a doctrine wasn’t debated doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist or wasn’t part of our deposit of faith from the get go, it may very well mean that there was nothing to contest.

 

[Surnaturel]

Hahahah! All history is mythologized. Do you also buy the myth that all Ecumenical Councils needed Papal Approval before it is considered Ecumenical? C’mon. Speck meets plank here.

Define ‘ecumenical’ then. The Pope’s signature was after the Emperor’s and the EP of Constantinople after the Pope. If the Pope didn’t receive a council that was intended to be ecumenical by the Emperor then it was only binding on the churches that accepted it, which would exclude the entire West. That would not be ecumenical but regional. Same goes for the East rejecting a council.

As a matter of fact, there was no definable criteria in the first millennium for establishing what council was ‘ecumenical’. Generally speaking, they organically gained ecumenical status. It’s actually somewhat problematic and would need to be amended, which should be obvious given the fact that there is no Emperor calling the councils, for one.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you have anything in the form of the writings of a Synod, the works of Saints, or the promulgation of Bishops that states this idea - or is it just your opinion?

Just look at all the councils that were overturned. The first council that was called the Seventh Ecumenical Council taught iconoclasm. Obviously it was overturned and eventually the iconodule council of Nicaea II became the officially recognized Seventh Ecumenical Council.

There are other examples.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Define ‘ecumenical’ then. The Pope’s signature was after the Emperor’s and the EP of Constantinople after the Pope. If the Pope didn’t receive a council that was intended to be ecumenical by the Emperor then it was only binding on the churches that accepted it, which would exclude the entire West. That would not be ecumenical but regional. Same goes for the East rejecting a council.

As a matter of fact, there was no definable criteria in the first millennium for establishing what council was ‘ecumenical’. Generally speaking, they organically gained ecumenical status. It’s actually somewhat problematic and would need to be amended, which should be obvious given the fact that there is no Emperor calling the councils, for one.

Ecumenical means “the inhabited world”, or basically “the whole world” in today’s parlance. The emperor summoned the councils but never participated in them (though many emperors did try to influence them). It is true that the Pope’s acceptance is required, but so does every other bishop. The Pope’s acceptance is just one of many, not the only one, that makes a council Ecumenical.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was wondering why such an aversion to original sin, I believe that there are certain parts of the Bible that attest to it, furthermore, the fathers definitely speak of B.V. Mary as being immaculate (during conception):

catholicpatristics.blogspot.ca/2009/03/immaculate-conception.html

Because it is not true doctrine, and it doesn’t fit the entirety of Orthodox faith. We can’t accept something even if it sounds good or logical, if it doesn’t fit the overall picture.