S
sidbrown
Guest
And what is the relevant papal document on this which allows for divorce and remarriage?
- Status
S
sidbrown
Guest
The Eastern Orthodox care very much about this issue.
M
MontChevalier
Guest
And so do we.
S
shaky
Guest
I do apologize for being i bit misleading by what i said that one of the Popes accepted divorce and remarriage
I did not read any actual papal document i was being bit presumptuous because Rome did not Object to this Practise.Does any body know if the pre nicene Church did Annulments?
P
PbloPicasso
Guest
Well, I care too. But not to the point where I feel like I have to not celebrate together. I know some of the main issues. Rome made a lot of decisions that had they waited for reunion would have been better. It seems that this is an impediment that prevents unity. Reunion bay not be the best terms from an Orthodox perspective. But the Orthodox made a lot of decisions based on anger, self-preservation. Rome did a number of atrocious things that were dispicable to say the least, and then to turn around and declare some of the dogmas that particularly create strain, just doesn’t make sense.
I would like to see the documents from both side, back when it occurred to see what was said. I know that in government sometimes they talk about something a majority vote wins it, but in these particular cases a unanimous decision seems like what should occur. In other words, either Rome as spoken and the issue is settled, as taught, and the Orthodox are just dissenting from it; or Rome has spoken erroneously, which raises a whole bunch of questions about decisions made since the split. The problem I have is that the Orthodox interpret scripture about Peter in a way that does not make sense. So I’m inclined to remain Catholic, but I do feel drawn to Eastern Catholicism because of the similarities to the Orthodox Church.
BTW: There is ONE CHURCH. That is Christ’s Church, otherwise known as the CHURCH OF CHRIST. I believe I remember Pope John Paul II, The Great, state that "the Catholic Church subsists within the Church of Christ. In a sense, all Christians subsist within the Church of Christ, only some hang outside the boundaries of what Christ taught, passed down through the bishops. Thus the CHURCH OF CHRIST is “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. Truth is that I believe Orthodox Christians are Catholic, which makes sense to me sense they still say the Nicene Creed, pre filioque clause. But they do say what I wrote in quotes.
It’s like looking at someone’s sins and trying to get the spec out of their eye when you have this huge log sticking out of yours. That was the point I was making. I’ve seen far too many Orthodox be really nasty to Catholics, as if that is even Christ like. In fact, it was a couple of Priest/Monks. Very insulting and definitely not charitable. Likewise, I’ve seen the same thing from Catholics even towards their own, Eastern Catholics, be snarky and rude. This feels like the longest cold war that ever existed. And since I faught in the cold war I know what I mean.
I would like to see the documents from both side, back when it occurred to see what was said. I know that in government sometimes they talk about something a majority vote wins it, but in these particular cases a unanimous decision seems like what should occur. In other words, either Rome as spoken and the issue is settled, as taught, and the Orthodox are just dissenting from it; or Rome has spoken erroneously, which raises a whole bunch of questions about decisions made since the split. The problem I have is that the Orthodox interpret scripture about Peter in a way that does not make sense. So I’m inclined to remain Catholic, but I do feel drawn to Eastern Catholicism because of the similarities to the Orthodox Church.
BTW: There is ONE CHURCH. That is Christ’s Church, otherwise known as the CHURCH OF CHRIST. I believe I remember Pope John Paul II, The Great, state that "the Catholic Church subsists within the Church of Christ. In a sense, all Christians subsist within the Church of Christ, only some hang outside the boundaries of what Christ taught, passed down through the bishops. Thus the CHURCH OF CHRIST is “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. Truth is that I believe Orthodox Christians are Catholic, which makes sense to me sense they still say the Nicene Creed, pre filioque clause. But they do say what I wrote in quotes.
It’s like looking at someone’s sins and trying to get the spec out of their eye when you have this huge log sticking out of yours. That was the point I was making. I’ve seen far too many Orthodox be really nasty to Catholics, as if that is even Christ like. In fact, it was a couple of Priest/Monks. Very insulting and definitely not charitable. Likewise, I’ve seen the same thing from Catholics even towards their own, Eastern Catholics, be snarky and rude. This feels like the longest cold war that ever existed. And since I faught in the cold war I know what I mean.
B
bluelake
Guest
There are many churches which follow different traditions.
If Jesus Christ is the center of this worship, they are saved.
We are commanded by Christ not to judge each other. Mt.22:36-40.
Did Christ die for a certain denomination or those who love and worship Him alone.?
When we go to heaven, will we see only catholics? Or pentecostals? and so on?
My opinion is we will see those who Love the Lord with their whole heart. Keeping in mind, no one is perfect.
Lets pray for one another.
God bless,
bluelake
A
Aramis
Guest
That’s heresy, Bluelake… Universalism. Been a heresy since before Martin Luther was born, and one he never took up himself, either.There are many churches which follow different traditions.
If Jesus Christ is the center of this worship, they are saved.
We are commanded by Christ not to judge each other. Mt.22:36-40.
Did Christ die for a certain denomination or those who love and worship Him alone.?
When we go to heaven, will we see only catholics? Or pentecostals? and so on?
My opinion is we will see those who Love the Lord with their whole heart. Keeping in mind, no one is perfect.
Lets pray for one another.
God bless,
bluelake
P
PbloPicasso
Guest
Christ didn’t die for a denomination. He died for all. However, just as there is a cure for some disease, the sick person must participate in taking the medicine and/or preventative measures to get and stay healthy, so does the person that wants to be saved. A person that wants to live but actively take part in what it takes to save his/her life. Likewise, a person that desires eternal life but participate in their salvation joining in with Christ’s sacrifice by dying to themselves.There are many churches which follow different traditions.
If Jesus Christ is the center of this worship, they are saved.
We are commanded by Christ not to judge each other. Mt.22:36-40.
Did Christ die for a certain denomination or those who love and worship Him alone.?
When we go to heaven, will we see only catholics? Or pentecostals? and so on?
My opinion is we will see those who Love the Lord with their whole heart. Keeping in mind, no one is perfect.
Lets pray for one another.
God bless,
bluelake
One does not just say “i believe in Jesus” and say “I accept Jesus”, they must allow Christ to be their life, dying to oneself, just as Christ died for us. Of course this must be done according to what they know. If someone willfully separate themselves from truth, they most likely won’t be saved. But only God knows our heart. It is not up to us to assume knowledge of someone’s salvation or condemnation.
S
shaky
Guest
All i know: Are we dealing with a mute God?. I know we have got the written word of God!!
But what about God speaking to us directly!! It seems that God spoke to all the people that had the words written in the holy bible. But these words still have to be correctly understood. But catholics from all the main denominations come up with different interpretations.
And It is worst in the protestant denominations with more different doctrines
They are all trying to die to self!!
I believe the key is that the living God needs to speak to each of us directly. We need to know God personally we should be talking to him asking questions? why how and where?
because he can say to those who have done great works and many things. I never Knew you>You who practise Iniquity.
M
Madaglan
Guest
I disagree with his many churches, many traditions (i.e. many different doctrines) statement, but I do not read universalism in his post. I read Bluelake’s post as saying that Christ did not die for a select few (single denomination or all those that love him) but for all.
C
Chris_McAvoy
Guest
I was told that this event of the Pope at the time of Vatican I council stomping down on the Melkite Patriarches head was a myth/lie made up by disgruntled Orthodox to make being in communion of rome appear as worse than it actually is.
Is this a proven fact? How many historians recognize that as reality. I’m as pro orthodox as they come but I dont like biased lies.
H
Hesychios
Guest
There were no Orthodox present.
If it is a myth or lie, it is a Catholic myth or lie.
If you are curious as to the veracity of the story, you could write the very Catholic father Roberson C/O CNEWA. Please post back here if he responds, I am as curious as you are.
P
PodunkMommy
Guest
I know this is not so simple, but I wish we could just put our differences aside and reconcile to become the One True Church again.
I know this may sound strange, but I believe we are. I believe we are both part of the True Church, we just aren’t unified under the Pope. I feel that the Orthodox are my seperated bretheren.
I wish we could put our differences aside, put the past in the past, have the Pope be the First among equals for the Orthodox, and move on. But I suppose life isn’t as simple as that?
It would seem to be healthy for the Church as well, beating with her two full lungs again.
Blessings.
I know this may sound strange, but I believe we are. I believe we are both part of the True Church, we just aren’t unified under the Pope. I feel that the Orthodox are my seperated bretheren.
I wish we could put our differences aside, put the past in the past, have the Pope be the First among equals for the Orthodox, and move on. But I suppose life isn’t as simple as that?
It would seem to be healthy for the Church as well, beating with her two full lungs again.
Blessings.
C
Chris_McAvoy
Guest
I wish the same, but because much of the hierarchy and contemporary Latin Church, is infected with modernist heresy, it’s not very likely.
(Keep in mind I am not saying the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope is heretical, only the actions of many of her more rebellious clerics, and that being said some of this infection of modernist heresy also exists in the Orthodox Church, debateably to a lesser extent, and not at all in regards to their liturgy)
The failure to consecrate the Immaculate Heart of Mary to Russia also did not help.
(Which ought not be thought of as an act of prosetyletization per se, but only the conversion of the heart, and action which would lead to a mutual intercommunion of Catholic and Orthodox churches, as well as a greater acceptance of the Immaculate Conception as a more legitimate popular doctrinal belief in Orthodox catholic Christianity)
S
SemiThomist
Guest
When the prospect of Moscow reuniting with Rome is mentioned, I have to wonder … would we have to accept the canonization of Nicholas II? I mean, Bl. Karl of Austria seems like he had the “stuff” to be worthy of veneration, but Nicholas … from encouraging anti-Japanese racism (didn’t he, a devout Christian, believe that the Japanese had souls?) to the pogroms and beyond … I know we can’t apply early 21st century values necessarily to judging a figure who lived a century earlier, but some of his actions would seem to disqualify him from the altars according to Vatican standards…
C
Chris_McAvoy
Guest
“Tsar Nicholas II was deemed worthy of canonization as a “passion bearer” by the Russian Orthodox Church because of the Christ-like humility and courage with which he met his deposition, imprisonment, and death, as well as his personal virtue and piety. The canonization was not an endorsement of all his actions as ruler, nor is it necessary to approve of everything he ever did as Tsar in order to recognize the qualities that make it appropriate for Orthodox Christians to consider him a saint. The same applies to his family.”
Surely one can find other “Blesseds” of with similar flaws or former sins somewhere amidst vast pantheon of obscure, forgotten Latin people, not to mention pre-1054/460 eastern people.
I remember the protests when Josemaria Escriva was canonized. I’ve yet to find anyone disapprove certain unjust attitudes he held at times as being false. Nevertheless if he ultimately was more holy than not, thats what matters most.
In both cases it was minority groups in the churches seeking to have these two individuals become Saints or Blesseds. And in both cases a church was responding to influential and often holy minority groups.
Surely one can find other “Blesseds” of with similar flaws or former sins somewhere amidst vast pantheon of obscure, forgotten Latin people, not to mention pre-1054/460 eastern people.
I remember the protests when Josemaria Escriva was canonized. I’ve yet to find anyone disapprove certain unjust attitudes he held at times as being false. Nevertheless if he ultimately was more holy than not, thats what matters most.
In both cases it was minority groups in the churches seeking to have these two individuals become Saints or Blesseds. And in both cases a church was responding to influential and often holy minority groups.
I’m not going to say the church is wrong or be unwilling to listen to why I should venerate them, but you’re not going to find me putting up pictures or icons of either Holy Josemaria Escrivá’s or blessed Nicholas II anytime soon.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Chris,
But brother Michael is correct that the Orthodox are not the source. Apparently, the story was revealed by the Melkite Patriarch during Vatican 2. From my investigation, the Patriarch himself is not the source of the story, since there is a written account by an anti-V1 author that existed before V2.
More likely, if it is a lie, it came from Protestant polemics.
Blessings,
Marduk
The earliest written source I could find for the story is in the mid-20th century. The story goes that the Melkite Patriarch kept the story to himself for many years (about 2 decades, IIRC), and finally (apparently) revealed it to Pope Leo XIII (Pio Nono’s successor). There have been different accounts of the matter - some say he stepped on his head. Others say he stepped on his neck and tried to choke him; others yet that not only did he step on his head, but ground his foot in his ear. I’m sure the story will only get worse as time progresses.
But brother Michael is correct that the Orthodox are not the source. Apparently, the story was revealed by the Melkite Patriarch during Vatican 2. From my investigation, the Patriarch himself is not the source of the story, since there is a written account by an anti-V1 author that existed before V2.
More likely, if it is a lie, it came from Protestant polemics.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Chris_McAvoy
Guest
Thanks brother Marduk,
when I eat my tasty Mulukhiyah chicken stew tomorrow, I will think of you!
All I knows is that one of the first comments I heard from Fr. Ted Pulcini as a casual comment in coffee hour in 2007 when I visited his church for the very first time, not having met him before, as an explanation of one of the many reasons why he became Orthodox, from being originally a Melkite seminarian, was that particular incident with that Patriarch being made the Pope’s footstool around the time of Vatican I council. “donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum” (until I make thine enemies thy footstool of your feet - Psalm 109). It was also brought up that the Melkites had strife forcibly adopting the Gregorian calendar toward that same period.
Subsequently a certain, Melkite Archimandrite with a P.hd who high up with the Patriarch, when I mentioned it to him that "the Pope certainly was bad to the Patriarch claimed that this story was an I quote “an outright lie” and the calendar issue was exagerrated in importance.
At this point I dont really care if it’s true or not, becauses there are so many issues that are of increased importance, what one individual does is with another is one thing. I’m more concerned with errors or sins comitted by large numbers of people than one or two.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Going back to the original question:
I wonder if some didn’t vote in the poll because there weren’t enough options. I’m thinking, in particular, of the opinion expressed by Fr. Robert Hart:
(emphasis added)
P
Peter_J
Guest
That last quote is from Fr. Hart’s blog: anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/11/worn-out-gotcha.html
- Status