Catholicism and Orthodoxy

[The_Iambic_Pen]

He even implies a sinister motive, which one can only conclude to be satanic influence.

Are all of our sinister motives because of satanic influence, or are we quite capable of such motives on our own?

In regard to this:

jimmy:

Do you think St. John Chrysostom was influenced by Satan when he said Mary sinned? How about St. Cyril when he said there was only one nature of Christ after the union? You answer those and you will have my answer.

One answer could be that St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyric were simply in error, which one need not attribute to satanic influence. One could also say that they were correct and that later teachings on the matter are incorrect. This latter option is not something that Catholics or Orthodox are likely to consider seriously, I realize.

In regard to this:

jam070406:

you and Gregory claim that there is no such thing as Papal Infallibilty or Universal jurisdiction, it is (in his words and yours) an innovation of Pius IX, therefore, do you believe that Pius IX was not protected, lead, or guided by the Holy Spirit and was in fact influenced by Satan?

The Orthodox would likely say that he was in error, coming to an incorrect conclusion, and possessing an incorrect opinion. The Orthodox are not likely to believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Roman pontiff from ever teaching theological error. What *some *Eastern Catholics say on the matter is something I find much more confusing. If they believe, as *some *appear to, that the Holy Spirit has protected the Orthodox hierarchs from teaching theological error, but that the Holy Spirit has *not *protected the pope from teaching theological error, then one wonders why they choose to be in communion with Rome rather than with the Orthodox Church…

It could be, and this seems to make the most sense to me, that these particular Eastern Catholics believe that no bishop, Catholic or Orthodox, is infallible in matters of faith and morals, and that the pope’s error in this matter does not take away from his authority or the necessity to be in communion with him.

In regard to this:

So jimmy, in your opinion, if the Papacy was not instituted by Christ, as understood by the Catholic Church today, is the Papacy now a tool of Satan?

I am obviously not jimmy , but it seems to me that it would be quite possible for the western Catholic understanding of the proper role of the papacy to be slightly incorrect, without it therefore becoming a tool of Satan. Even the Orthodox do not appear to be entirely opposed to the papacy, just part of how it views itself today. Eastern Catholics must not view the papacy as a tool of Satan, since they see union with the pope as having value.

Just the thoughts of someone who is probably not remotely qualified to comment on this sort of thing…

 

[jam070406]

Just the thoughts of someone who is probably not remotely qualified to comment on this sort of thing…

I’m not qualified either.
Just trying to understand. It’s all quite mind bending.
I should probably bow out before I say something really moronic though.

 

[jam070406]

Apologies to all.

 

[davymax3]

I think the burden of proof should have to lie on the Orthodox church here. I think it’s pretty clear that the benefit of the doubt should go to the Pope. So, it’s not a matter of a self-supporting argument as you claimed. It’s a matter of what all Catholics always did and when in doubt they yielded to the seat of Peter. So can you give me any proof that the Pope taught a Heresy. You may have thought that the posting with all the quotes was sufficient. But apparently the other poster and I both didn’t see the inherent contradiction of heresy being espoused. I don’t need every one laid out, just one is fine.

If there is no solid proof, then I think that the best decision would be to give the Pope his due respect as successor of Peter.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Davy,

Orthodox would say that they yielded to an Ecumenical Council of all the Bishops in the world, with the Pope as honorary head of the Assembly, not the Pope alone.

 

[davymax3]

Davy,

Orthodox would say that they yielded to an Ecumenical Council of all the Bishops in the world, with the Pope as honorary head of the Assembly, not the Pope alone.

Yea, got that. But if there was say a dispute in the Ecumenical Council then the Pope would get final say. Thus, the dignity and respect of the Pope remains. It’s silly to argue against it. The Orthodox freely acknowledge that the Pope was primal.

Also, the Pope didn’t just all of a sudden and decided, hey I’m going to add the filioque today and all those Eastern guys are gonna just have to take it as many Orthodox portray it as. It had been said for a while in order to fight a heresy and the seat of the Pope for a while resisted it being officially added. Finally, the Pope just said okay, fine, you can say it. It wasn’t something he even came up with. Nor did he command Easterners to say it. It’s just ridiculous. The issue came down to drifting cultures and politics. The filioque was the excuse the Eastern Church was looking for.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Also, the Pope didn’t just all of a sudden and decided, hey I’m going to add the filioque today and all those Eastern guys are gonna just have to take it as many Orthodox portray it as. It had been said for a while in order to fight a heresy and the seat of the Pope for a while resisted it being officially added. Finally, the Pope just said okay, fine, you can say it. It wasn’t something he even came up with. Nor did he command Easterners to say it. It’s just ridiculous. The issue came down to drifting cultures and politics. The filioque was the excuse the Eastern Church was looking for.

Don’t forget the arrogant Cardinal-Legate who excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch (invalidly, since the Pope had passed) and his entire Church (invalidly!!)…

 

[davymax3]

Don’t forget the arrogant Cardinal-Legate who excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch (invalidly, since the Pope had passed) and his entire Church (invalidly!!)…

Yea, but that was a bit afterward. Definitely a bad move, I don’t deny. I’m just saying that I think the Schism wasn’t really about Theology. Just like the war between the states wasn’t about slavery. But such is life…

 

[jimmy]

We can look to look to Church teaching to correct St. John & St. Cyril. The same Church Pius IX said one must be in communion with.

Gregory I and you seem to believe that Pius IX was a heretic and taught heresy. He even implies a sinister motive, which one can only conclude to be satanic influence. Because of this, Gregory I refuses to be in communion with Rome and warns others to avoid Rome thus further dividing the Body of Christ. You agreed with his position. Neither of you have presented any sufficient evidence, given by authority of the Church, that condemns PIus IX or what you claim are “innovations”.

Why would there be a rebuke of Pius IX when the west has followed his lead? The east has rejected papal infallibility. That is four of the original five patriarchs who rejected papal infallibility. That is pretty authoritative.

You haven’t answered the question. John Chrysostom taught that Mary had sinned. Was he led by satan? It is irrelevant what was later defined. The answer that I expect is that he was not led by satan but simply in error. It sounds to me like you want to lead me into a dichotomy that says either the pope is infallible or he is led by satan. I reject the dichotomy.

 

[jam070406]

Why would there be a rebuke of Pius IX when the west has followed his lead? The east has rejected papal infallibility. That is four of the original five patriarchs who rejected papal infallibility. That is pretty authoritative.

You haven’t answered the question. John Chrysostom taught that Mary had sinned. Was he led by satan? It is irrelevant what was later defined. The answer that I expect is that he was not led by satan but simply in error. It sounds to me like you want to lead me into a dichotomy that says either the pope is infallible or he is led by satan. I reject the dichotomy.

No, considering the fact that the fathers said we are to look to Rome, I would say it’s not necessarily authoritative. This is what complicates the issue.

What proves St. John Chrysostom was in error? Dogmas of Rome? Circular logic. Perhaps there is a consensus in Orthodoxy, I confess, I am not aware.

What proves Pius IX was in error? (???)
Better yet, taught heresy. (a serious charge)

I see a far greater difference between whether or not Mary was sinless and Christians the world over having to submit to the Roman Pontiff in order to obtain salvation, don’t you?
That would be one whopper of an error, with millions of souls on the line.

It’s really a dichotomy that you (and I) must deal with. Either Pius was leading souls TO Truth or AWAY from Truth. There seems to be no way around it. This is no small error. And it is seems to be THE key issue of why People leave the Church or refuse to be in communion with Her.

 

[davymax3]

To add to what the prior poster said, even the most respected and revered of church doctor’s is “permitted” error. The difference here is a teaching of a man who we, because of his teachings, recognize as holy, and the Pope, whose teachings we follow because of his position and the grace that he receives from holding his position. They are two very different things. The former we revere because of his teachings, the latter we revere because of his position, and so listen to his teachings.

 

[jimmy]

No, considering the fact that the fathers said we are to look to Rome, I would say it’s not necessarily authoritative. This is what complicates the issue.

What proves St. John Chrysostom was in error? Dogmas of Rome? Circular logic. Perhaps there is a consensus in Orthodoxy, I confess, I am not aware.

What proves Pius IX was in error? (???)
Better yet, taught heresy. (a serious charge)

I see a far greater difference between whether or not Mary was sinless and Christians the world over having to submit to the Roman Pontiff in order to obtain salvation, don’t you?
That would be one whopper of an error, with millions of souls on the line.

It’s really a dichotomy that you (and I) must deal with. Either Pius was leading souls TO Truth or AWAY from Truth. There seems to be no way around it. This is no small error. And it is seems to be THE key issue of why People leave the Church or refuse to be in communion with Her.

What proves St. John was in error? Read his writings. Either he was in error about Mary or Rome is in error about Mary.

Ok, you see a difference between Mary’s sinlessness and papal authority? Would you say that St. Cyprian was led by satan when he called a council in opposition to P. Steven on the issue of baptism of heretics? In fact it was two councils (I think they were in 254 and 256). And in his letters he speaks of all the bishops being equal witnesses to the truth and that a council is greater than any one bishop. Was he led by satan?

I don’t think your dichotomy is necessary. I would agree that it is the key issue that leads people away from Catholicism. The question in my mind is whether it is a serious enough thing that people should be led away from Rome if they reject infallibility and supremacy. There are a lot of Eastern Catholics who reject these doctrines but remain in communion with Rome. They believe that union with Rome is a good thing.

To add to what the prior poster said, even the most respected and revered of church doctor’s is “permitted” error. The difference here is a teaching of a man who we, because of his teachings, recognize as holy, and the Pope, whose teachings we follow because of his position and the grace that he receives from holding his position. They are two very different things. The former we revere because of his teachings, the latter we revere because of his position, and so listen to his teachings.

There is a problem when there is a dichotomy between holiness and authority or between Grace and truth.

This still doesn’t change the point. If St. John Chrysostom speaking an error on matters of faith does not point to guidance by satan then neither does P. Pius IX speaking error necessarily point to guidance by satan.

 

[davymax3]

I wasn’t making the point about being led by satan. I don’t consider myself on expert on such matters as whether a particular person is being led by satan. It’s a bit our of my dept. I won’t hypothesize as to that. However, my point still remains. The comparison of St. John Chrysostom with a Pope is irrelevant. Plus, to my knowledge, Orthodoxy doesn’t think Mary sinned, anyway. Why is this such a bone of contention for you? And even if it is. Why would you have such faith in the writing of this one man, however holy, over the authority of the Pope speaking ex cathedra. I think St. John Chrysostom would disagree with you on that point alone. To my knowledge, St. John never laid down the law and said no one should ever think that Mary was without sin or else he will be a heretic. St. John wrote about everything there was to write about and was right about so much. Couldn’t he have erred in this one thing. Or are we to take the most minor of points from one particular Doctor of the Church over the Authority of the Pope and the many other Doctors that agreed with him and spoke on the issue? It’s just not consistent.

 

[mardukm]

There is nothing wrong with that. But you must realize that the Eastern Orthodox base their arguements upon faith as well.

There is faith, then there is ignorance, then there is just plain old malice against the papacy and the Catholic Church. It takes time to distinguish. Everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt at first.

Your arguement begins with the authority of Rome and questions the authority of Gregory to question that authority. Gregory rejects the whole base for the authority of Rome so your arguement is meaningless from his perspective. According to the EO Rome does not have the authority which is inherent in the arguement you use.

Personally, I agree with brother Jam070406’s question, “what authority do you have…?” However, I would not have quoted Mt 16:19 in appostion. There really is no comparison between the teaching authority of bishops and the general responsibility of laypeople to defend the Faith (though I think that is sometimes confused in EO’xy). I would have kept it on the level of “proof for your position.” Brother Jam070406 does offer that method of rejoinder as well, and I would focus on that.

EO believe their saints were filled with the Holy Spirit and consequently Truth so the same must apply either way. If you are going to assume the Holy Spirit was present when the pope declared that the Greeks worship demons or that no man can be saved unless he is in submission to the Roman Pontiff then why shouldn’t Gregory(or any other EO Christian) assume that the Holy Spirit was present to Nicetas when he made his statements? You have to remember that according to the EO epistemology that God is the only one who is infallible and also that through communion with God the saints gain knowledge of the Truth.

That’s a lot better than the “every man is a pope” paradigm of modernism, and only a little better than the “every Christian is a pope” paradigm of Protestantism. If two Saints contradict each other in a matter of Faith, there has to be a way to decide who is right if the matter becomes serious enough to the Church at large.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The question in my mind is whether it is a serious enough thing that people should be led away from Rome if they reject infallibility and supremacy. There are a lot of Eastern Catholics who reject these doctrines but remain in communion with Rome. They believe that union with Rome is a good thing.

I’ve never met one. I know EC’s who have doubts about it, but those who actually reject it normally leave the unity of the Catholic Church.

Union with Rome is not just “a good thing.” It is actually necessary. If one believes Jesus himself set up the Petrine ministry, if one believes that Jesus himself established a visible head for his entire flock, not many heads for many little flocks, then it is necessary by virtue of that divine establishment alone.

Distinct from the question divine establishment are the dogmas of infallibility and supremacy, IMO. I think there are many Catholics (of any Tradition) who have a lot of questions on these two matters. For me, anyway, they are resolved (I needed to resolve them before conscionably entering the Catholic communion). I think what keeps Catholics (who are aware of their options in Orthodoxy) in Catholicism, despite questions about those two dogmas, is exactly that very fact of the divine establishment of the papacy. What exactly the papacy is for, and what are its characteristics? Well, maybe the apophatic paradigm works in favor of Catholic unity in this regard.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jam070406]

What proves St. John was in error? Read his writings. Either he was in error about Mary or Rome is in error about Mary.

Ok, you see a difference between Mary’s sinlessness and papal authority? Would you say that St. Cyprian was led by satan when he called a council in opposition to P. Steven on the issue of baptism of heretics? In fact it was two councils (I think they were in 254 and 256). And in his letters he speaks of all the bishops being equal witnesses to the truth and that a council is greater than any one bishop. Was he led by satan?

I don’t think your dichotomy is necessary. I would agree that it is the key issue that leads people away from Catholicism. The question in my mind is whether it is a serious enough thing that people should be led away from Rome if they reject infallibility and supremacy. There are a lot of Eastern Catholics who reject these doctrines but remain in communion with Rome. They believe that union with Rome is a good thing.

There is a problem when there is a dichotomy between holiness and authority or between Grace and truth.

This still doesn’t change the point. If St. John Chrysostom speaking an error on matters of faith does not point to guidance by satan then neither does P. Pius IX speaking error necessarily point to guidance by satan.

Pius IX claimed a Divinely institued office in which Christians are subject to the Pope on matters of Faith and morals. If this is wong it would seem more then just speaking in error but a giant, deceptive lie.
Who decides that Pius taught heresy?
It has been shown by the Fathers that Rome has final say on matters.
You’ve just proven that Saints differ on matters of Faith and Morals. Pius IX gave us the solution to this problem. He showed us how this final say works. Is Pius’ claim from God or a big, deceptive lie, not of God?
Is this an deceptive innovation to gain power (as many claim) or… a deeper understanding of Truth provided by God. The seeds of which were planted by the Church Fathers.
I will avoid any further alluding to Satan because it just seemed to confuse things, bad choice on my part. Forgive me for that.

 

[Mickey]

Pius IX gave us the solution to this problem. He showed us how this final say works. Is Pius’ claim from God or a big, deceptive lie, not of God?

"Our weakness at this moment comes neither from Scripture nor the Tradition of the Fathers nor the witness of the General Councils nor the evidence of history. It comes from our lack of freedom, which is radical. An imposing minority, representing the faith of more than one hundred million Catholics, that is, almost half of the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive agenda, which contradicts conciliar traditions. It is crushed by commissions which have not been truly elected and which dare to insert un-debated paragraphs in the text after debate has closed. It is crushed by the commission for postulates, which has been imposed from above. It is crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections, and the opportunity to demand explanations; The minority is crushed, above all, by the full weight of the supreme authority which oppresses it".
Bishop Francois Le Courtier @ Vatican I

 

[davymax3]

What’s the point mickey? Sorry if I’m just obtuse, I just don’t see the relevance.

-davymax3

 

[mardukm]

"Our weakness at this moment comes neither from Scripture nor the Tradition of the Fathers nor the witness of the General Councils nor the evidence of history. It comes from our lack of freedom, which is radical. An imposing minority, representing the faith of more than one hundred million Catholics, that is, almost half of the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive agenda, which contradicts conciliar traditions. It is crushed by commissions which have not been truly elected and which dare to insert un-debated paragraphs in the text after debate has closed. It is crushed by the commission for postulates, which has been imposed from above. It is crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections, and the opportunity to demand explanations; The minority is crushed, above all, by the full weight of the supreme authority which oppresses it".
Bishop Francois Le Courtier @ Vatican I

Have you taken a gander at the Catholic responses to these charges? Please give some quotes and refute them, if you can. I would love to see if you have been well-informed and fair-minded about the matter, or are simply parrotting anti-papal pundits.

Blessings

 

[davymax3]

This is such a silly method of attacking people. Could I just get a quote from any Orthodox bishop and start spouting that that must be what every Orthodox thinks? It makes no sense.