Catholics ~ can you properly explain this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wesley7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
guanophore; you totally are misunderstanding my points here; let me help clarify my statements for you. If you need to make other points to this topic, please make them without manipulating my subject comments out of context. Thank you in advance:)

Orthodox not in communion with the Pope isolate themselves from the successors to the apostles which includes Peter, and all those patriarchs and bishops who are apostolic successors in communion with the successors of Peter in the Popes. I have in no way discounted Orthodox apostolicity. Your “not true” comment is out of context with my comment and goes off topic into another subject that does not equate my subject matter.
guanophore said:
This is not true! I will agree that they are isolated from the successor of Peter, but it was Peter who started the line of succession in Antioch, and other points East. The successors installed by Paul during his journeys are all valid successors. This is why the Roman Communion recognizes the Apsostolicity and Sacraments among our Eastern brethren.

guanophore; I will make it simple here; I am not going to engage in negative onlslaughts of who blames who here, so I will not comment further on your opinions of my comments.

My main point was to disclose that no one can remove the validity of a celebrated valid sacrament from God. No matter who pretends to reject a valid sacrament. Thus “what God has joined together let no man put asunder”.

I have not defined a persons disposition to the mysteries of the sacraments, you are making that assumption here and finding disagreement when there is none in my comments to disagree.

If you have a question about my comments, please ask for clarification. I can asure you the CCC and the Sacred Scriptures and sacred Tradition will support what I have stated thus far.

What I would like to know is when? and how? can an (isolated) Orthodox community have? or gain the power to invalidate a valid sacrament? Seperated from the communion with Peter (Rock) and the other valid successors to the original apostles?

Peace be with you
Click to expand...
 
Major_Minor said:
Can you properly explain why many Eastern Orthodox branches are not in communion with
-other- Eastern Orthodox branches?
Click to expand...
Example of a modern situation?
At any rate it can happen because each Bishop has lists of the other bishops he is in communion with and can remove them, there was a brief period of time when Rome was in communion with Antioch and Alexandria but not Constantinople, who was likewise in communion with those two but not Rome. Of course that ended when both Antioch and Alexandria broke with Rome shortly after.
Evidence that such a situation is not alien to Rome either.
Can you properly explain why Eastern Orthodoxy was always more susceptible to Arian heresy?
Click to expand...
Where do you get this? The Arian Heresy, though originating in the East had its hayday in the West, at one point being the established faith the lands under German control (which included at the time Spain, Portugal, France, Germany proper, Northern Italy).

However neither of these questions have anything to do with what the OP asked.
 
Major_Minor said:
This was taken from the “Shameless Popery” blog:

“Many of the distinctive problems plaguing Catholic-Orthodox relations are historical and ethnic. Unfortunately, partially because the Orthodox allied themselves with the Roman Empire when it transplanted its capital from Rome to Constantinople, it became a much more ethno-national Church than did Catholicism, and it fostered close ties to the state and to the people of the nation. These ties have come back to haunt the Orthodox in more recent years. They serve as a source of disunity, with the Russian Patriarch and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople sparring pretty openly (the Russians are the larger and more powerful Church, while Constantinople holds the ancient Patriarchy). This ethnic identity often serves as a barrier to would-be newcomers to the Faith. And at times, it blinds some members of the Orthodox Church to the Christian mission.”
Click to expand...
This of course forgets that Rome willingly allowed the Emperor to select the new popes for as long as that territory was under his control. It also forgets the Italian domination of your supposedly “universal” church.

The Catholic Church has ethnic churches as well, and a very ethnic identity.
 
JRKH said:
The above is a very fine example of how NOT to engage others in Christian Charity.
Your list above, written in a very accusatory way, merely points out some differences in doctrines and practices between the Catholic and the EO Church. It does not explain why some EO are dead set against reunification.

What your post does demonstrate is that there is “prideful” reisistance on both sides by its use of inflamatory adjectives. It also demonstrates some pretty silly accusations.
For example:
they grow hair on their faces and their heads -
This is wrong? I have hair on my head. I’m sure Jesus did too just as I’m sure Jesus had a beard.
they do not baptize babies until the eighth day
I was born into a Roman Catholic Family and was not baptized until the 16th day.
they allow and defend carnal marriages of ministers of the sacred altar
The Roman Catholic Church also has some married priests. Celibacy is a “practice”, a discipline that could be changed if the Church so decided. There is nothing dogmatically wrong with a priest being married.

In all this post demonstrates the reason why the two churches need to proceed, carefully and in Christian Love, through the magisterial offices of each, and not by “street corner polemics” that only serve to stir up passions.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
guanophore said:
Where on earth did you get this?! you are required to cite your sources here.
Click to expand...
This is the text of the bull of excommunication that was used by papal legates to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople and all who follow him.
 
wynd said:
This is the text of the bull of excommunication that was used by papal legates to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople and all who follow him.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
Would you have a link for this?

Peace
James
 
wynd said:
This is the text of the bull of excommunication that was used by papal legates to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople and all who follow him.
Click to expand...
Absolutely shameful. However, it is very clear that it is founded in ignorance, cultural prejudice, and power issues.

At least both side reversed their excommunications. That is a start.
 
guanophore said:
Absolutely shameful. However, it is very clear that it is founded in ignorance, cultural prejudice, and power issues.

At least both side reversed their excommunications. That is a start.
Click to expand...
And this is yet another reason for not bringing it up - or at least not in the way that Wetcatachuman did.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
And this is yet another reason for not bringing it up - or at least not in the way that Wetcatachuman did.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Such a method, while provacative and adept at making a point, certainly does not seem to commend itself to the healing of the wounds.
 
My apologies to everyone! It was completely in jest. I was indeed quoting Cardinal Humbert’s bull of excommunication, and it was my intent merely to show how ridiculous the situation that lead to the beginning of the formal schism was. I believe that the source has already been linked to.
 
WetCatechumen said:
My apologies to everyone! It was completely in jest. I was indeed quoting Cardinal Humbert’s bull of excommunication, and it was my intent merely to show how ridiculous the situation that lead to the beginning of the formal schism was. I believe that the source has already been linked to.
Click to expand...
Thanks. We’ve all been there on the miscommunication thing. 😊
Glad to hear that you were not serious. 👍

For future reference, - don’t forget the emoticons. :D:p:thumbsup:

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Thanks. We’ve all been there on the miscommunication thing. 😊
Glad to hear that you were not serious. 👍

For future reference, - don’t forget the emoticons. :D:p:thumbsup:

Peace
James
Click to expand...
I personally think that the accusation on castration indicated that I wasn’t serious.
 
WetCatechumen said:
I personally think that the accusation on castration indicated that I wasn’t serious.
Click to expand...
Yeah I would agree! :whacky:

Of course I knew what you were referencing and sometimes the rhetoric on these forums can be a little over the top. 😉
 
=Wesley7;6743517]There are Orthodox who insist on not being in communion with the Pope. (Bishop of Rome)
Click to expand...
Why? . .What are the reasons? . .
Click to expand...
Thr “reason given” sadly does not reflect the entire truth.

They claim that it is over the CREED and the Trinity. That The Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the father and son.

Behind this was a desire for POWER, Pride again is the culpert.
 
Wesley7 said:
There are Orthodox who insist on not being in communion with the Pope. (Bishop of Rome)

Why? . .What are the reasons? . .
Click to expand...
At least one of the original reasons was the so-called “filioque” clause in the creed, the statement of the faith.

The Catholic (Latin Rite) version says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from “the Father and the Son”

The Eastern Orthodox version says (as I am told) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from “the Father”. (and obviously, not also from the Son.)

Other differences may have cropped up over time, there’s been about a thousand years since the split occurred, but that difference was at least AMONG the reasons for the initial SCHISM.

I would rather that we all get back together. 🙂
 
PJM said:
Behind this was a desire for POWER, Pride again is the culpert.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, it is we prideful, haughty Orthodox who are to blame. How dare we refuse to submit with docility to the ever humble, infallible Pope. :rolleyes:

Why don’t we honor the humility of the papacy by referring to one of the more humble documents ever produced by it.

From the Dictatus papae.
  • That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
  • That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
  • That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
  • That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
  • That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
  • That he himself may be judged by no one.
  • That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.


This whole idea that it is pride that prevents us uniting with the Roman Catholic Church, while at the same time the Pope makes all these extravagant claims of infallibility and supremacy is laughable at best. That would be tantamount to Heidi Fleisse accusing someone of being promiscuous! 🤷

Yours in Christ
Joe
 
Isn’t there a Byzantine Bishop that the Eastern Church aligned with?? I would think so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top