Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue Resumes this week

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pravoslavac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nine_Two said:
Ok, so provide a source where your church said what was said in that situation meant something other than what it sounds like. As it is all I have is your interpretation, which as you said, you don’t have the right to interprete what the church said.

Yes, acceptance and rejection are mutually exclusive, and the point that has been argued by other Catholics is that a middle possition, of not knowing but being open, is acceptable. Please provide a source if this is otherwise.

Yes, that’s called “poetic license”, since you still haven’t said what bit of the Divine Liturgy you’re talking about being rejected. I made a suggestion as to a possibility of why it might seem that way, but I also said they may be outside of Orthodox teaching. Provide an actual example.
Christ wasn’t critical of sacred rites, he was critical of how they were conducted, namely through commercial operations (money changers) in the temple. He was far closer to criticism of the sacred rite than anyone calling the Mass a “mess” (an opinion I’ve heard shared by many Catholics) is.

And you’re the judge?
Click to expand...
 
Nine_Two said:
Ok, so provide a source where your church said what was said in that situation meant something other than what it sounds like. As it is all I have is your interpretation, which as you said, you don’t have the right to interprete what the church said.
Click to expand...
I have no interpretation. The simple point is that your interpretation has no weight.
Yes, acceptance and rejection are mutually exclusive, and the point that has been argued by other Catholics is that a middle possition, of not knowing but being open, is acceptable. Please provide a source if this is otherwise.
Click to expand...
Mutually exclusive and complete. What is this ostensible middle position? Not knowing is irrelevant. I accept much on faith that I cannot know in a rational sense.
Christ wasn’t critical of sacred rites, he was critical of how they were conducted, namely through commercial operations (money changers) in the temple. He was far closer to criticism of the sacred rite than anyone calling the Mass a “mess” (an opinion I’ve heard shared by many Catholics) is.
Click to expand...
He was highly critical of things other than sacred rites; he criticized the other things not the sacred rites. And he is the Christ.
And you’re the judge?
Click to expand...
I call 'em like I see 'em.
 
sidbrown said:
I don’t exactly see that since we have from VI: I think it is Session 4 : 18 July 1870:chapter 3:
“9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”
Click to expand...
This has been explained many tiimes in several forums. I believe once or twice, it was in response to your pwn queries. You never respond to the explanations, and then a few weeks or months later, you repeat the same question. I suspect you are just trolling.

Blessings
 
“Both Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II have expressed a willingness to consider returning to the form of the papacy during that first millennium, if doing so would serve the cause of unity.” what does this mean?

its great news and I’m happy to hear it. May we all learn to live a True Life in God 🙂
 
Question (it’s a very minor one I must admit): What would the name of the Church be if we came back together? Catholic or Orthodox?
 
no wait a minute I think I got it. The Orthodox Catholics, for we would be united and both have the correct doctrine ( orthodox ) and be universal ( catholic ) 😊😃 either/or we’d be united and thats what matters most.
 
mardukm said:
This has been explained many tiimes in several forums. I believe once or twice, it was in response to your pwn queries. You never respond to the explanations, and then a few weeks or months later, you repeat the same question. I suspect you are just trolling.

Blessings
Click to expand...
Where is the response, so that I can check it out.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Question (it’s a very minor one I must admit): What would the name of the Church be if we came back together? Catholic or Orthodox?
Click to expand...
The Western Church would be called the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Church would be called the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. The whole Church would be called the Orthodox Catholic Church.
 
prodromos said:
No council was considered to be “Ecumenical” until years, even decades after the fact. Nor does a council necessarily need to be “Ecumenical” to be generally accepted by all Churches in communion. Your comment, “An ecumenical council??”, makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...
First, I apologize to all of you who have written to me and not gotten a response. I have not received e-mail notices for the last 3-4 pages of debate. An Orthodox plot, no doubt.😃
prodromos said:
What does ‘generally accepted’ mean and what does it have to do with doctrine? Perhaps my comment makes no sense to you, but it’s indispensable when discussing infallibly declared doctrine. ‘Generally accepted’ does not mean ‘ecumenical’ nor does it translate to ‘infallibly declared.’
Click to expand...
 
josephdaniel29 said:
The term Roman Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church and Melkite Greek Catholic Church were not used in the early Church but have come into use in later times. Does that mean that they are no longer “catholic” because the common names used have changed over the centuries? It just goes to show how asinine the name argument is. For the Orthodox the term “catholic” is simply a given and we use the term “orthodox” to distinguish ourselves from the heterodox group (i.e. the Roman Church and those in communion with her) that calls itself “catholic” as well.
Click to expand...
You agree the various additions to ‘the Catholic Church’ were not in use in the early centuries of the Church. The only constant is “The Catholic Church” and it’s no surprise, therefore, you think nomenclature is asinine. Names are used for identification, Joe. We don’t call you ‘Dave’ because it isn’t your name. The one Church Jesus came to build has been known exclusively by the name ‘The Catholic Church’ continuously from the beginning of the 2nd Century to the present day. Like it or not.

‘Roman Catholic Church’ is often used as a pejorative, as you know.
josephdaniel29 said:
We profess ourselves to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church every single liturgy.
Click to expand...
So do we, except we celebrate the Mass very day and recite the Creed only on Sunday and Holy Days.
josephdaniel29 said:
Simply because we shorten the full titles of our Churches from titles such as the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America or the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese or the Eastern Orthodox Greek Catholic Church to simply the Orthodox Church has no bearing on the fact that we are indeed the One Church professed in the Creed.
Click to expand...
And you all share the same, identical doctrines? ‘One’ has different meanings for different people. It sometimes gets a little Orwellian.
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
You agree the various additions to ‘the Catholic Church’ were not in use in the early centuries of the Church. The only constant is “The Catholic Church” and it’s no surprise, therefore, you think nomenclature is asinine. Names are used for identification, Joe. We don’t call you ‘Dave’ because it isn’t your name. The one Church Jesus came to build has been known exclusively by the name ‘The Catholic Church’ continuously from the beginning of the 2nd Century to the present day. Like it or not.
Click to expand...
Yes, and we are still called the Catholic Church. Always have been and always will be.

BTW you still haven’t answered my question. Since in later times different descriptors were added the names of various Catholic Churches, such as “Melkite” or “Chaldean”, does that mean they are not “catholic” and not part of the original Church?
Ferde_Rombola said:
And you all share the same, identical doctrines? ‘One’ has different meanings for different people. It sometimes gets a little Orwellian.
Click to expand...
Of course. We wouldn’t be in communion otherwise.

In Christ
Joe
 
dvdjs said:
I have no interpretation. The simple point is that your interpretation has no weight.
Click to expand...
You contradicted what I said so you most certainly did have an interpretation, unless you’re just a troll, which I suspect more and more.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Yes, and we are still called the Catholic Church. Always have been and always will be.

BTW you still haven’t answered my question. Since in later times different descriptors were added the names of various Catholic Churches, such as “Melkite” or “Chaldean”, does that mean they are not “catholic” and not part of the original Church?

Of course. We wouldn’t be in communion otherwise.

In Christ
Joe
Click to expand...
Except that you self-identify as Orthodox.

Sorry, but St. Augustine has you nailed.
 
WetCatechumen said:
Except that you self-identify as Orthodox.

Sorry, but St. Augustine has you nailed.
Click to expand...
We also self identify as Catholic, we simply don’t use that term often on these forums out of respect for Catholics and to avoid confusion.
 
WetCatechumen said:
Again, St. Augustine has you nailed.
Click to expand...
If I understand this correctly, most Orthodox believe that St. Augustine was wrong on several counts, and some call him Blessed Augustine (not St.) because of that.
That is why I don;t see it as convincing to bring up St. Augustine’s teaching in a case like this.
 
sidbrown said:
If I understand this correctly, most Orthodox believe that St. Augustine was wrong on several counts, and some call him Blessed Augustine (not St.) because of that.
That is why I don;t see it as convincing to bring up St. Augustine’s teaching in a case like this.
Click to expand...
Blessed is a term for a full saint in Orthodoxy; they equate the term directly to Saint; it’s a matter of the nature of their life.

It’s Catholics who make distinctions by terms that are otherwise synonyms: Blessed, Saint…

So you are just reading more into it than exists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top