Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[JackQ]

That which is consistant with what came before.
About?

By “consistent” do you mean that anything that does not contradict the Councils is permissible? Or are there other points of reference? What are they?

The Ecumenical Councils are not men, and the writers of Scripture most certainly were fallible - using scripture, tell me how many angels were at the tomb of Christ?

The Councils are not men? Who attended them? Who wrote the documents? And are you suggesting that the Scriptures are fallible?

It is. That doesn’t mean we stick to it like “Bible Churches” stick to the bible.

No, I wouldn’t think that you would treat the Ecumenical Councils like the Protestants treat Scripture. But that still leaves unanswered my question, which is: by what means or authority do you pronounce as heretical things that were not covered by the Ecumenical Councils?

Of course you did. You demanded to know where Infallibility was denounced, thus making the assumption that if it isn’t it must be correct.
Because tradition is more than just the councils, and things can be determined to be heresy outside them, indeed I’m unaware of any heresy that was not condemned outside of council prior to being condemned by an Ecumenical Council.

No, I didn’t make the leap from the Ecumenical Councils didn’t cover the issue to the Pope must be infallible. The question I’m asking is the same. If it’s not covered in the Ecumenical Councils, how do you know it’s wrong until another Ecumenical Council convenes to decide the matter? That’s hardly the same as asserting the truth of something based on its not being discussed at one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. (Fact is, I base my belief in papal infallibility on Catholic doctrine, which I know you reject, which is why I didn’t mention it.) As to your last point, Orthodox doctrines have been condemned outside of Councils too, so I’m not sure what your point is here. You can’t mean that a Council is superfluous, since if condemning a heresy outside of a Council is sufficient, then why have a Council?

The entire problem with your argument is that you assume we are like Western Christians. You have your pope, Protestants have their bibles, therefore we must have the Ecumenical Councils. We have much more, we have Holy Tradition, of which Scripture and the Council’s are prime examples.

The only thing I’m assuming is that you must have some kind of authority. You say it’s tradition, and I am asking what that consists of. Fathers of the Church to be sure, but how do you decide to follow John Chrysostom and not Tertullian? Photius and not Augustine? And if I’m making any argument at all it’s that I’m having a hard time discerning any coherency in what you’re saying. I know that doesn’t mean that Catholicism is right, but it certainly doesn’t mean that you are.

 

[JackQ]

With all due respect, but the above is a clear sign of down playing this “DOGMA”, and the least accurate, allow me to ask you this, Is the Christ the only Head in your church according to your church’s doctrines, if not then how many head does your church have and who is the other head along with Christ “DOGMATICALLY”. keeping in mind what dogma pertain to.

No, I think I stated the Catholic position pretty accurately. I’m not denying that the Pope has authority over the entire Church, but, as it says in the Catechism, “Christ ‘is the head of the body, the Church.’ He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father’s glory, ‘in everything he (is) preeminent,’ especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things.” The Pope is the head of the College of Bishops, and the source and foundation of unity, but the head of the Church is Christ.

1. Are you suggesting that the infallabillity is in the statement? or is it in the Pope

I’d say it lies in the office. If the Pope resigned, he wouldn’t have that charism anymore.

1. who is the only one that can speak ex-cathedra?

The Pope.

3)Is the pope infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra?

Yes. He cannot teach error as to faith or morals when he speaks ex cathedra.

If it was as simple as you are clearly trying to emply, then we wouldn’t have problem with it, example: if someone today asks me who is the head of your Church, I may tell him so and so, but we both understand, that what he and I mean is the primate of my Church or maybe the Bishop or the Patriarch…however, this would become a major problem when you turn it into a Dogma, that means you are obliged to mean it that the Pope is the head of the Church ( when it is clear that there only one Head to the Church and that is CHRIST ALONE) and once it is a dogma that means it is at a Divinity level such as the Deity of CHRIST or the Most Holy Trinity…etc, well my freind this is what we reject and we will never submit to, not in a zillion year.
So in simple, all the above is not just a mere titles or words or way of speaking but they are dogma.
If there is any overstating in the Papal doctrine, it is in your church, because all the things that I stated are not of myself, I mean by now everybody knows about those dogmas in your church, they r online in your CCC or the Councils of your church or in the encyclical…etc, however I think that there is understating on your behalf for not stating them the way they are.
GOD bless †††

I don’t know how simple I’m trying to make the issue, but I think you’re arguing with someone else. I would never say, for example, that Vatican I didn’t say what it said regarding the Pope. But it didn’t say what it didn’t say either. And I wouldn’t say that everyone knows about Catholic doctrine. In fact, I find that a lot of people don’t know very much about it at all. But please feel free to look at the Catechism, the Councils, and the encyclicals that you find online

 

[JackQ]

How do you define ‘unity’ ?

The Orthodox already have it. Your church can be part of it too. We are always willing to make room for another self-governed church that teaches Truth.
Don’t you really mean “take over those churches we can coerce, cajole or trick into it” ? Historically that would be more accurate.

Anyway, I think your church has given up on that sort of practice and is eventually going to accept the Orthodox method of unity: agree in articles of Faith and share communion. The days of forcing eastern Christians into submission are over for now, thank goodness.

Well we have unity too. In fact, we have unity with the rock on which the Church is built, Peter and his successors, the source and foundation of unity. And no, I wouldn’t want to coerce, cajole, or trick anyone into it, because that wouldn’t be authentic. Surely you’re not saying that the Eastern Catholics exist because they were coerced or deceived? I think that shows a measure of disrespect to them.

As far as agreeing in articles of faith, that would be nice, but it looks like we’re some way down the road from the entire Orthodox Church accepting papal infallibility. As has been mentioned before, there’s no one bishop in Orthodoxy who can bind the entire Church. Even if the Ecumenical Patriarch agreed to end the schism, the Russian Patriarch could simply renounce the action.

You should know that we want you reunify with us not because we think it would be a bad thing for you, but a good thing. We think it would be better for us too, because the Church is all the poorer for the lack of many of our Eastern brethren. Sometimes it may seem like we feel as though we need you. We do.

 

[Nine_Two]

By “consistent” do you mean that anything that does not contradict the Councils is permissible? Or are there other points of reference? What are they?

To be consistant something cannot contradict the faith as it existed prior. Even the Council’s had something come before them. So for example when Valentinus began preaching his message, Christians of the day could look at it and see it didn’t match what had been previously taught, and could see it was heresy. (For the record, as far as I know, Valentinian theology was never officially declared heresy by the Council’s because it had come and gone by the time of the Councils, yet it most certainly was).

The Councils are not men? Who attended them? Who wrote the documents? And are you suggesting that the Scriptures are fallible?

No, the council’s are attended by men, but they are not men. As for suggesting the Bible is fallible, and keeping in mind that you have asked the question in a general context - find the answer to my question and you will not only have an answer as to my opinion, but you will have proof in its correctness.

No, I wouldn’t think that you would treat the Ecumenical Councils like the Protestants treat Scripture. But that still leaves unanswered my question, which is: by what means or authority do you pronounce as heretical things that were not covered by the Ecumenical Councils?

As I’ve said, those things which are inconsistant with the Faith are unorthodox.

No, I didn’t make the leap from the Ecumenical Councils didn’t cover the issue to the Pope must be infallible. The question I’m asking is the same. If it’s not covered in the Ecumenical Councils, how do you know it’s wrong until another Ecumenical Council convenes to decide the matter? That’s hardly the same as asserting the truth of something based on its not being discussed at one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. (Fact is, I base my belief in papal infallibility on Catholic doctrine, which I know you reject, which is why I didn’t mention it.) As to your last point, Orthodox doctrines have been condemned outside of Councils too, so I’m not sure what your point is here. You can’t mean that a Council is superfluous, since if condemning a heresy outside of a Council is sufficient, then why have a Council?

We know it is wrong because it is inconsistant with the faith. Do you have examples of these Orthodox doctrines being condemned?

The only thing I’m assuming is that you must have some kind of authority. You say it’s tradition, and I am asking what that consists of. Fathers of the Church to be sure, but how do you decide to follow John Chrysostom and not Tertullian? Photius and not Augustine? And if I’m making any argument at all it’s that I’m having a hard time discerning any coherency in what you’re saying. I know that doesn’t mean that Catholicism is right, but it certainly doesn’t mean that you are.

But that’s the problem, you’re approaching this from the view that there must be some central authority, there isn’t. Orthodoxy is the Faith, and it hinges on consistancy with tradition. Those used to a hard central authority often have a hard time with this, perhaps it is because I came from a Church that had a weak and rather useless central authority that I haven’t had that issue.
For the record, all four of those men have roles as fathers in the Church - although not equally. Although Tertullian fell into heresy, he was for most of his life staunchly Orthodox and wrote much of value.

This may seem like something that is completely off topic, but I do intend to bring it around to being on topic, do you by chance know much about British Constitutionalism?

 

[shaky]

But the first among equals idea was not the doctrine in the beginning. Check out Irenaeus on this. Also check out the first Pope Leo on the position of the Roman See. Pope Leo rendered his views on the matter six centuries before the schism. We can’t “go back” to the first among equals notion, because we were never there.

I have checked back. The first amongst equals=Primacy was the doctrine in the beginning.
I know about the views of all the other Popes and bishops on this position. Irenaeus+ Pope Stephen 254-257AD+ Pope Cyprian 258+ Pope Damasus 366-384AD All stressed on Primacy=First Amongst Equals the Roman See.

Peter Paul Mark etc where Equals when the discussed doctrine. when they where in agreement. It was Peter that voiced and established things to the rest of the churches.

It was around the 6Th century and onwards that the bishops of Rome were talking about Supremacy over the rest of the bishops of Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem etc.
In other words the bishops of Rome Alone could discuss things on there own as regarding doctrine without Including the Other bishops Alexandria Antioch etc.
Things came to head in 1054 AD when the bishops of Rome insisted on this.

Actually the last 2 discussions in 2009+2010 are about Primacy=First Amongst Equals where this becoming the role of the Pope. And not complete Authority=Supremacy.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I agree with your sentiment. It has always baffled me how the Pope acts toward the Russian Patriarch. If I were Catholic it would be a point of major annoyance to me. The MP has no interest in what the Pope is offering, so why does the pope kowtow to him?

You are a very erudite person, Orthodox brother in Christ!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I have checked back. The first amongst equals=Primacy was the doctrine in the beginning.
I know about the views of all the other Popes and bishops on this position. Irenaeus+ Pope Stephen 254-257AD+ Pope Cyprian 258+ Pope Damasus 366-384AD All stressed on Primacy=First Amongst Equals the Roman See.

Peter Paul Mark etc where Equals when the discussed doctrine. when they where in agreement. It was Peter that voiced and established things to the rest of the churches.

It was around the 6Th century and onwards that the bishops of Rome were talking about Supremacy over the rest of the bishops of Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem etc.
In other words the bishops of Rome Alone could discuss things on there own as regarding doctrine without Including the Other bishops Alexandria Antioch etc.
Things came to head in 1054 AD when the bishops of Rome insisted on this.

Actually the last 2 discussions in 2009+2010 are about Primacy=First Amongst Equals where this becoming the role of the Pope. And not complete Authority=Supremacy.

Yes and in fact it was the Patriarch of New Rome/Constantinople and the other Eastern Patriarchs (including the Byzantine Emperor) that supported papal triumphalism (and I don’t mean that in a negative way) because they needed a strong referee in the West to help them against each other.

In this way, and most ironincally, the Orthodox East unwittingly helped develop the strong monolithic papal authority that they would later reject on ecclesiological grounds.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

To be consistant something cannot contradict the faith as it existed prior. Even the Council’s had something come before them. So for example when Valentinus began preaching his message, Christians of the day could look at it and see it didn’t match what had been previously taught, and could see it was heresy. (For the record, as far as I know, Valentinian theology was never officially declared heresy by the Council’s because it had come and gone by the time of the Councils, yet it most certainly was).

No, the council’s are attended by men, but they are not men. As for suggesting the Bible is fallible, and keeping in mind that you have asked the question in a general context - find the answer to my question and you will not only have an answer as to my opinion, but you will have proof in its correctness.
As I’ve said, those things which are inconsistant with the Faith are unorthodox.
We know it is wrong because it is inconsistant with the faith. Do you have examples of these Orthodox doctrines being condemned?

But that’s the problem, you’re approaching this from the view that there must be some central authority, there isn’t. Orthodoxy is the Faith, and it hinges on consistancy with tradition. Those used to a hard central authority often have a hard time with this, perhaps it is because I came from a Church that had a weak and rather useless central authority that I haven’t had that issue.
For the record, all four of those men have roles as fathers in the Church - although not equally. Although Tertullian fell into heresy, he was for most of his life staunchly Orthodox and wrote much of value.

This may seem like something that is completely off topic, but I do intend to bring it around to being on topic, do you by chance know much about British Constitutionalism?

Excellent commentary on the Fathers and Tertullian especially!

 

[shaky]

In this poll, the first issue affirms that the Orthodox should accept all essential Catholic beliefs etc.

Depending on how we define “essential,” the Orthodox already do and have done for two thousand years.

Alex

I Think the Folique could be sorted out with a new Creed that is worded in such a way that both east and west could Accept

Something like:

The holy spirit proceeds from the father to the Son and then from the Son to us. which in turn thus the holy spirit proceeds from both the father and the Son. Which Together with the father and the Son is Glorified

 

[Hesychios]

I Think the Folique could be sorted out with a new Creed that is worded in such a way that both east and west could Accept

Something like:

The holy spirit proceeds from the father to the Son and then from the Son to us. which in turn thus the holy spirit proceeds from both the father and the Son. Which Together with the father and the Son is Glorified

A capital idea.

Well … basically, the west maintains that when it says “Father and the Son” it means “Father through the Son”. So why not just say “Father through the Son”?

Just change it. That would go miles toward resolving this thing and it is practically an effortless and painless change.

There is also the argument that some things are better left unsaid, which does have it’s own attraction to many people. After all, why should we be condemning one another over matters most of us have a scarce chance to really understand in our lifetimes?

Either way, the matter should not have been a church dividing issue - but now it is. There definitely are ways to mitigate the impact of it though.

 

[Seamus_L]

Once again it’s a case of what can we do to please the Orthodox. Imagine how outrageous it would seem if I simply suggested the Orthodox just start using the Filioque.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

A capital idea.

Well … basically, the west maintains that when it says “Father and the Son” it means “Father through the Son”. So why not just say “Father through the Son”?

Just change it. That would go miles toward resolving this thing and it is practically an effortless and painless change.

There is also the argument that some things are better left unsaid, which does have it’s own attraction to many people. After all, why should we be condemning one another over matters most of us have a scarce chance to really understand in our lifetimes?

Either way, the matter should not have been a church dividing issue - but now it is. There definitely are ways to mitigate the impact of it though.

If both sides just agreed to use the ORIIGINAL creed sans Filioque, then there would be no problem.

In fact, St Mark of Ephesus at Florence in 1440 did not expect the Latin Church to drop the Filioque (which he believed to be a heresy as all the Greeks did). He simply wanted the Latin Church to drop it from the creed and leave it at that.

The Latin Church has every right to its theology of the Filioque. The Orthodox also have the “Filioque” in the economic sense of the Spirit being sent into the world by both the Father and the Son.

Unity could have been easily achieved in 1440 and it is still open to us all in 2011.

Alex

 

[hazcompat]

A capital idea.

Well … basically, the west maintains that when it says “Father and the Son” it means “Father through the Son”. So why not just say “Father through the Son”?

Just change it. That would go miles toward resolving this thing and it is practically an effortless and painless change.

There is also the argument that some things are better left unsaid, which does have it’s own attraction to many people. After all, why should we be condemning one another over matters most of us have a scarce chance to really understand in our lifetimes?

Either way, the matter should not have been a church dividing issue - but now it is. There definitely are ways to mitigate the impact of it though.

Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso…

The Holy Spirit is Infallible!

peace

 

[stephraim]

A capital idea.

Well … basically, the west maintains that when it says “Father and the Son” it means “Father through the Son”. So why not just say “Father through the Son”?

Just change it. That would go miles toward resolving this thing and it is practically an effortless and painless change.

There is also the argument that some things are better left unsaid, which does have it’s own attraction to many people. After all, why should we be condemning one another over matters most of us have a scarce chance to really understand in our lifetimes?

Either way, the matter should not have been a church dividing issue - but now it is. There definitely are ways to mitigate the impact of it though.

Yes, “per Filium” or something of that nature would be just as succinct and much less divisive and ambiguous.

 

[sidbrown]

Once again it’s a case of what can we do to please the Orthodox.

I don;t see where either side has budged much from their positions.

 

[Hesychios]

Once again it’s a case of what can we do to please the Orthodox. Imagine how outrageous it would seem if I simply suggested the Orthodox just start using the Filioque.

It has been suggested, many times.

It is not outrageous, it just will not work.

If you are serious about unity, you restore the Creed. Take your time, we have waited this long …

 

[mangy_dog]

I trust that when this happens, Pope Benedict XVI will know exactly what conditions if any should come into play.

 

[JackQ]

I have checked back. The first amongst equals=Primacy was the doctrine in the beginning.
I know about the views of all the other Popes and bishops on this position. Irenaeus+ Pope Stephen 254-257AD+ Pope Cyprian 258+ Pope Damasus 366-384AD All stressed on Primacy=First Amongst Equals the Roman See.

Peter Paul Mark etc where Equals when the discussed doctrine. when they where in agreement. It was Peter that voiced and established things to the rest of the churches.

It was around the 6Th century and onwards that the bishops of Rome were talking about Supremacy over the rest of the bishops of Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem etc.
In other words the bishops of Rome Alone could discuss things on there own as regarding doctrine without Including the Other bishops Alexandria Antioch etc.
Things came to head in 1054 AD when the bishops of Rome insisted on this.

Actually the last 2 discussions in 2009+2010 are about Primacy=First Amongst Equals where this becoming the role of the Pope. And not complete Authority=Supremacy.

Did you check with Irenaeus? He said this:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

 

[golliemollie]

choice #1. The Orthodox chose to break away, albeit it 1000 years ago. In that time church leaders have had plenty of time to look at and study the rules. If they want full communion with the Church at Rome they should know what is expected.

 

[JackQ]

To be consistant something cannot contradict the faith as it existed prior. Even the Council’s had something come before them. So for example when Valentinus began preaching his message, Christians of the day could look at it and see it didn’t match what had been previously taught, and could see it was heresy. (For the record, as far as I know, Valentinian theology was never officially declared heresy by the Council’s because it had come and gone by the time of the Councils, yet it most certainly was).

No, the council’s are attended by men, but they are not men. As for suggesting the Bible is fallible, and keeping in mind that you have asked the question in a general context - find the answer to my question and you will not only have an answer as to my opinion, but you will have proof in its correctness.
As I’ve said, those things which are inconsistant with the Faith are unorthodox.
We know it is wrong because it is inconsistant with the faith. Do you have examples of these Orthodox doctrines being condemned?

But that’s the problem, you’re approaching this from the view that there must be some central authority, there isn’t. Orthodoxy is the Faith, and it hinges on consistancy with tradition. Those used to a hard central authority often have a hard time with this, perhaps it is because I came from a Church that had a weak and rather useless central authority that I haven’t had that issue.
For the record, all four of those men have roles as fathers in the Church - although not equally. Although Tertullian fell into heresy, he was for most of his life staunchly Orthodox and wrote much of value.

This may seem like something that is completely off topic, but I do intend to bring it around to being on topic, do you by chance know much about British Constitutionalism?

Well the Arians taught something clearly opposed to the Gospel, but they called Nicaea I to deal with it. You keep saying I’m insisting on a central authority for you, but I’m not. I’m just trying to understand your criteria, which frankly seems to me to be a tad amorphous.

I’m somewhat familiar with British Constitutionalism. If you’re trying to make an analogy I think it’s inapt, because the British Constitution is subject to change, whereas Orthodox tradition, presumably, is not. Moreover, the British Constitution deals with a very specific area: the structure of British government. Any vagaries are of no moment, since changes in the constitution are accomplished with ordinary legislation.