Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidbrown
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
joe370 said:
Nine, isn’t the EOC being guided into all truth, as a council that is, meaning that those councils teach infallibly as opposed to fallibly, regarding faith and morals only?
Click to expand...
No single bishop or group of bishops is inherently infallible. History bears that out very clearly.
 
As to your first point, infallibility doesn’t mean that everything the Pope says under all conditions is infallible.
Click to expand...
On the second point, Clement was basically saying that for the Corinthians to resist what he was saying would entail resisting God. Now that’s more than what I would say about any statements I made. And Clement’s letter was about faith and morals. It was the wrong thing for the Corinthians to do to throw out their old clergy and replace them with new.
Click to expand...
Vatican I was a formulation of what had been in the Church from the beginning. The Holy Spirit protected the Council from error, but whether there is more to say about Papal infallibility regarding its extent or conditions, I can only speculate.
Click to expand...
40.png
ciero:
You don’t really buy that line do you?

Makes perfect sense to me; it did even as a former protestant. Just as the Trinity was a 4th century formulation of what had been in the Church from the beginning. It was merely developed later on, just as the Trinitarian doctrine was. 👍
 
JackQ said:
Well, you asked my opinion, and I gave it. What do you say has been done historically? What’s the right way to handle these things, Ciero?
Click to expand...
What I proposed (and I believe you were in agreement with) was that the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome should be permitted to decide for themselves who they would be in communion with. If the Ukranian Catholic Church decides to be in communion with the Orthodox Church of Greece but the Church of Greece is NOT in communion with Rome so be it…this has happened many times in the past and still happens today in the Orthodox world.

Met. Kalistos Ware wrote a paper proving the Church of Kiev was in communion with both Constantinople and Rome until well into the 1700s…long after Constantinople and Rome were out of communion…

…but for some reason JackQ dosen’t like that idea.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
No single bishop or group of bishops is inherently infallible. History bears that out very clearly.
Click to expand...
Let’s try it again: every human on the planet, past, present and future, is fallible. Nine, isn’t the EOC, comprised of all fallible leaders, being guided into all truth, ** as a council that is, **meaning that those councils teach infallibly as opposed to fallibly, regarding faith and morals only?
 
joe370 said:
Makes perfect sense to me; it did even as a former protestant. Just as the Trinity was a 4th century formulation of what had been in the Church from the beginning. It was merely developed later on, just as the Trinitarian doctrine was. 👍
Click to expand...
The line I was referencing was the bit about Vatican I being what the church always taught…what a line of bunk!
 
joe370 said:
I am only asking because I have received a couple different answers and am searching for clarification: Does the Eastern Orthodox Church view the self-governing ecclesial bodies that comprise the Eastern Orthodox Church, to be the church of Matthew 16, built on the Rock? I am not baiting; I really don’t know the answer. :confused:

You are Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my church…
Click to expand...
Certainly so, that is exactly what we believe…
 
Nine_Two you said: In other words you’re saying that you can’t know what you believe until it has been defined?

Are you suggesting that you and I do not need the church, be it the EOC or CC, to make official definitions when division and dissension ensues, as it did so often in the early church?
 
joe370 said:
Nine_Two you said: In other words you’re saying that you can’t know what you believe until it has been defined?

Are you suggesting that you and I do not need the church, be it the EOC or CC, to make official definitions when division and dissension ensues, as it did so often in the early church?
Click to expand...
Yes Joe we need the church…but historicly the church did this with councils not by one man pope or no pope making pronouncements.
 
ciero said:
The line I was referencing was the bit about Vatican I being what the church always taught…what a line of bunk!
Click to expand...
The CC has always taught that the church was guided by the Holy spirit into all truth, since Pentecost, which means that the church, comprised of all fallible leaders, cannot teach fallibly, regarding faith and morals. If the church cannot teach fallibly regarding faith and morals alone…well you know the rest…🙂
 
joe370 said:
The CC has always taught that the church was guided by the Holy spirit into all truth, since Pentecost, which means that the church, comprised of all fallible leaders, cannot teach fallibly, regarding faith and morals. If the church cannot teach fallibly regarding faith and morals alone…well you know the rest…🙂
Click to expand...
Yes Joe as I said earlier the church is infallible…when speaking in an Ecumenical Council…this power does NOT rest in one man.
 
ciero said:
No but you are saying the East should ascribe to the Augustinian view of original sin…something this Easterner isn’t willing to do. 🙂
Click to expand...
Hi there Ciero,

I did not mean to imply that at all. I was simply saying that the Augustinian view, is simply that – just “a view”. It is not something that everyone has to agree with, as even the great St. John Cassian did not agree with Augustine on many subjects and gave his perspective on many of Augustine’s ideas.
 
ciero said:
Yes Joe we need the church…but historicly the church did this with councils not by one man pope or no pope making pronouncements.
Click to expand...
The Pope, bishop of Rome, does not make unilateral decisions. The Pope calls for a council, when necessary, and as a council, they make their decisions, and then the Pope makes an official proclamation, just as was the case with the Assumption. Surely the same can be said for each and every autonomous EO church - yes?
 
ciero said:
Yes Joe as I said earlier the church is infallible…when speaking in an Ecumenical Council…this power does NOT rest in one man.
Click to expand...
That was all I wanted to know. The EOC does in fact claim infallibility when it comes to her teachings. 👍
 
joe370 said:
The Pope, bishop of Rome, does not make unilateral decisions. The Pope calls for a council, when necessary, and as a council, they make their decisions, and then the Pope makes an official proclamation, just as was the case with the Assumption. Surely the same can be said for each and every autonomous EO church - yes?
Click to expand...
No Joe none of the Pope “infallible” pronouncements came from an Ecumenical council, which Council did the dogma of the Assumption come from Joe?..and NO Joe no Eastern Orthodox church would even think of making such a pronouncement without an Ecumenical council.
 
ciero said:
No Joe none of the Pope “infallible” pronouncements came from an Ecumenical council, which Council did the dogma of the Assumption come from Joe?..and NO Joe no Eastern Orthodox church would even think of making such a pronouncement without an Ecumenical council.
Click to expand...
When you say ecumenical, you mean both east and west? I agree!!! So what I have discovered tonight is that the EOC believes that the EOC was built on Peter, just as the CC believes that the CC was built on Peter, and since the EOC and the CC are no longer ecumenically one, neither the EOC nor the CC can make infallible pronouncements - correct?
 
If Latins and Orthodox (and apparently also at least some ECs) can’t agree on organizational structure (as the EO reception of the attempted equivalencies by joe370 show), how on earth can they be expected to agree on deeper matters of theology that really show how far apart the two communities are?

It seems to me that even if the Latins were right and the two communities just have “separate but equal” ways of guaranteeing the infallibility of their churches, we would still have the fundamentally different approaches to the faith which are NOT reconcilable and have not been ever since the Roman communion began endorsing things that had never been placed in the category of dogma before the Great Schism. In fact, if the Latins are right, I see it as even worse than that. They would have me believe that infallibility is at least theoretically preserved in the Orthodox Church (presumably by the same Holy Spirit that guides the Roman Pope in his infallible statements), thereby the Orthodox criticism of the Latin overreaching. Or is the Holy Spirit only guiding the schismatic Orthodox when they are in agreement with Rome on a given point? It seems to me that if the Holy Spirit is telling one Church that its doctrine is correct (or necessary, or whatever) while telling the other that the same doctrine is not correct or necessary, we have one of two inescapable conclusions that we must draw: Either the Holy Spirit, who IS GOD and worshiped together with the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity, is wrong in its guidance of one or the other Church, or one church’s epistemology is off.

You can take your pick as to which is which, but I don’t see how you can have the Holy Spirit telling the Latins that the Immaculate Conception is absolutely necessary for the salvation of souls and the preservation of the faith, while the Orthodox see such a doctrine as unnecessary at best. Are the Orthodox just not listening to the Holy Spirit, or is the Roman Catholic Pope listening to something other than the Holy Spirit? I don’t see how there is any middle ground here.

And this is just an example of one of the doctrines that separate the two communions! :eek:
 
You just hit the nail smack dab on the head. The holy spirit is only guiding one of these churches into all truth, or, is the HS guiding another church other than one of these 2 churches. I suppose all we can do is follow our hearts and mindswhen making a choice…
dzheremi said:
If Latins and Orthodox (and apparently also at least some ECs) can’t agree on organizational structure (as the EO reception of the attempted equivalencies by joe370 show), how on earth can they be expected to agree on deeper matters of theology that really show how far apart the two communities are?

It seems to me that even if the Latins were right and the two communities just have “separate but equal” ways of guaranteeing the infallibility of their churches, we would still have the fundamentally different approaches to the faith which are NOT reconcilable and have not been ever since the Roman communion began endorsing things that had never been placed in the category of dogma before the Great Schism. In fact, if the Latins are right, I see it as even worse than that. They would have me believe that infallibility is at least theoretically preserved in the Orthodox Church (presumably by the same Holy Spirit that guides the Roman Pope in his infallible statements), thereby the Orthodox criticism of the Latin overreaching. Or is the Holy Spirit only guiding the schismatic Orthodox when they are in agreement with Rome on a given point? It seems to me that if the Holy Spirit is telling one Church that its doctrine is correct (or necessary, or whatever) while telling the other that the same doctrine is not correct or necessary, we have one of two inescapable conclusions that we must draw: Either the Holy Spirit, who IS GOD and worshiped together with the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity, is wrong in its guidance of one or the other Church, or one church’s epistemology is off.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top