M
Montalban
Guest
I find it odd that Catholics cannot except a fact as given to them by a non-Catholic without seeking to analyse why they’re even talking to them
You guys are a riot!
Eastern Orthodox Churches re-entering full communion with Rome: Problems with the hierarchy
- Status
You guys are a riot!
T
tdgesq
Guest
They didn’t? Here are some excerpts from the First Vatican Council:
Session 3 : 24 April 1870
Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith
. . .
- Thereupon there came into being and spread far and wide throughout the world that doctrine of rationalism or naturalism,—utterly opposed to the Christian religion, since this is of supernatural origin,—which spares no effort to bring it about that Christ, who alone is our lord and savior, is shut out from the minds of people and the moral life of nations. Thus they would establish what they call the rule of simple reason or nature. The abandonment and rejection of the Christian religion, and the denial of God and his Christ, has plunged the minds of many into the abyss of pantheism, materialism and atheism, and the consequence is that they strive to destroy rational nature itself, to deny any criterion of what is right and just, and to overthrow the very foundations of human society.
- With this impiety spreading in every direction, it has come about, alas, that many even among the children of the Catholic Church have strayed from the path of genuine piety, and as the truth was gradually diluted in them, their Catholic sensibility was weakened. Led away by diverse and strange teachings [4] and confusing nature and grace, human knowledge and divine faith, they are found to distort the genuine sense of the dogmas which Holy mother Church holds and teaches, and to endanger the integrity and genuineness of the faith.
. . . - And so we, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, in accordance with our supreme apostolic office, have never left off teaching and defending Catholic truth and condemning erroneous doctrines. But now it is our purpose to profess and declare from this chair of Peter before all eyes the saving teaching of Christ, and, by the power given us by God, to reject and condemn the contrary errors. This we shall do with the bishops of the whole world as our co-assessors and fellow-judges, gathered here as they are in the Holy Spirit by our authority in this ecumenical council, and relying on the word of God in Scripture and tradition as we have received it, religiously preserved and authentically expounded by the Catholic Church.
M
Montalban
Guest
Who was condemned for teaching modernism in the church?
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
My apologies for thinking too kindly of you. Given that you have consistently presented this little bit ad nauseum in every debate about the Eastern and Western churches, I was hoping that you actually had a sane reason for doing so, perhaps even a credible argument! However, when asked for one, you plead innocence and point fingers back at us!I find it odd that Catholics cannot except a fact as given to them by a non-Catholic without seeking to analyse why they’re even talking to them
You guys are a riot!
I find it odd that this Orthodox dodges the question when asked, and one so easily given in to gross generalisations too. Most uncharacteristic of most Orthodox posters here.
What a disappointment!
Since you don’t have a reason for bringing it up, I propose we drop the topic. What say you?
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
Nobody. But apparently since you only wanted to bring it up as a fact, I guess it’s not relevant.
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
My apologies. Given that you have consistently presented this little bit ad nauseum in every debate about the Eastern and Western churches, I was hoping that you actually had a sane reason for doing so, perhaps even a credible argument! However, when asked for one, you plead innocence and point fingers back at us!I find it odd that Catholics cannot -]except/-] accept a fact as given to them by a non-Catholic without seeking to analyse why they’re even talking to them
You guys are a riot!
I find it odd that this Orthodox dodges the question when asked, and one so easily given in to gross generalisations too. Most uncharacteristic of most Orthodox posters here.
What a disappointment!
However, I’m more interested in talking about the issues rather than each other, and given your lack of interest in discussing anything substantial, I guess I shall just leave it here. Feel free to respond and make more personal attacks as you wish.
N
Nestor_kea
Guest
I understood it in similar way, too. Like there must be suspicion of heresy (will see if it is heresy or true doctrine) to convoke a concil if acceptable for Orthodox. Now I think about the must of speaking at least of something doctrinal if acceptable for Orthodox – true or not? And the long-being-planed Panorthodox council – is it / will it have to speak about something doctrinal if it should be acceptable within Orthodox communion?
So when no one is explicitly excomunicated, it is not counted like dealing with heresy?
T
tdgesq
Guest
I was just showing that you were incorrect when you stated that Vatican I did not deal with heresies. It dealt with multiple modern heresies.
To answer your question though, no particular person was condemned for teaching modernism at Vatican I. Then again, no particular person was condemned in Nicaea II for teaching Iconoclasm, nor was any particular person condemned at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 for teaching circumcision.
A
Aramis
Guest
Many orthodox churches have internal councils annually - all their bishops meet in synod for routine administration. Some include laity and non-bishop clergy for these meetings.
But, since EO ecclesiology doesn’t permit one church to exert authority over another, save by breaking or entering communion, that to call a council essentially means that the normal means of interaction have failed.
M
Montalban
Guest
I did have a reason. I told you; you have changed your church.
You may have missed it. I accept that you keep changing it, giving rulings against non-existent heresies, etc.
Who are the modernist heretics?
Instead of dealing with the fact you wish to personalise this and examine motivations, etc., or to argue with a fact!
M
Montalban
Guest
And I just showed you you’re incorrect in saying this. You can’t have heresies without heretics.
Nice try. Iconoclasts existed within the church. Various people had pushed iconoclasm including emperors, and sadly, patriarchs.
They also mentioned people that had erred, but were allowed back… from the Acts
"*Sabbas, the most reverend hegumenus of the monastery of the Studium, said: According to the Apostolic precepts and the Ecumenical Synods he is worthy to be received back.
Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch, said: Those who formerly were the calumniators of orthodoxy, now are become the advocates of the truth.*"
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.v.html
They were named! People who had pushed the heresy were known. THey ought to be because they tortured monks over it!
They also, incidentally, confirmed the condemnation of a patrirarch and a pope!
“casting out Sergius, Honorius”
The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nice.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.xii.html
and again
" Sergius, Honorius"
The Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.xv.html
Michael the Stammer was a known iconoclast
read this
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.xvii.html
Who pushed heresies of modernism in the church?
T
tdgesq
Guest
Well, of course you can. Arianism is still a heresy, even if it is no longer widely practiced. Unfortunately though, many modern heresies (materialism, rationalism and naturalism) have found their way into the minds of members of the Church. Vatican I expressly states that:
- With this impiety spreading in every direction, it has come about, alas, that many even among the children of the Catholic Church have strayed from the path of genuine piety, and as the truth was gradually diluted in them, their Catholic sensibility was weakened. Led away by diverse and strange teachings [4] and confusing nature and grace, human knowledge and divine faith, they are found to distort the genuine sense of the dogmas which Holy mother Church holds and teaches, and to endanger the integrity and genuineness of the faith.
I never attempted to indicate that Iconoclasm didn’t exist in the Church at the time of Nicaea II. It clearly did, just as the edict of circumcision existed among Jewish leaders at the time of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. All I stated is that no particular person was condemned in the decrees of Nicaea II or the Council of Jerusalem for those heresies. At the general sessions of Nicaea II there were individual anathemas declared, but they aren’t found in the actual decrees, and no individual persons are mentioned in the Council of Jerusalem.
Alfred Loisy and George Tyrell, just as two examples. Both priests and both eventually excommunicated. The problem became so bad, particularly in Catholic universities, that Pope Pius the X in 1910 required every clergyman to take the THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM. Why do you ask?
M
Montalban
Guest
This doesn’t mention modernism. Certainly it mentions materialism
I apologise for this. I have mixed things up. I asked “who were the modernist heretics” and you proceeded on that basis to try to answer. I got modernism and materialism mixed up, and you followed my lead.
I got confused. You followed my confusion. I’ll try and re-work this.
Let’s start with a dogma defined by one of the Vatican’s… Papal Infallibility - in Vatican I
Who were the anti-infallibilitists teaching against infallibility in the church that lead to the convoking of Vatican I
W
Wandile
Guest
Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Yusuf for one
L
LionHeart777
Guest
This presupposes that anything defined by an Ecumenical Council must be a direct response to an attack on the Catholic Faith and/or the reason for convening an Ecumenical Council must be to defend and define a teaching that is being attacked.
Since you already stated in post #99 that you never were claiming that an Ecumenical Council had to be called for the reason of combatting heresies only, why belabor a moot point?
I suppose if you are just wanting to discuss the history of why Councils were convened that’s one thing (and I am not 100% sure why the more recent Councils you bring up were convened and don’t have interest in commenting on it - others have anyway), that’s one thing. But if you are bringing it up to somehow to argue that Catholics “keep changing [their] [C]hurch” (your words from post #97) , I added the big “C” and made it fit my sentence notified w/ the ] ), and that the Catholic Church is to be faulted for this alleged “innovation”, then your point proves too much.
For example, in Acts 15, the civil authority had absolutely no part in the convening of an Ecumenical Council whereas at Nicaea I, the Emperor expressed a desire for that Council to be held and made it known to the Church, to my understanding. Therefore, following your logic, the undivided Church “changed” from Acts 15 to Nicaea I. We both know that this is not so though.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi, sorry for coming in late. I think what’s mostly needed here is perspective.
Imagine, if you will, that a friend of yours announces his decision to run for president in 2016, and then adds that he’s concerned about how he’ll finish high school if he does in fact get elected. You would probably say something like “Oh, I wouldn’t worry too much about that.”
M
Montalban
Guest
Was he declared a heretic?
M
Montalban
Guest
Well all the 7 ecumenical councils were in response to attacks.
Because I simply note the difference between the 7 Ecumenical Councils and Vatican I and II
I accept that your church can change things to suit itself.
Are you saying Acts 15 was an “Ecumenical Council”? It’s never referred to as one
I accept that local councils aren’t called for by an emperor
I accept you’re trying to justify that your church changes stuff by trying to argue that changes already happened. There’s no need to offer an apology for your church changing stuff, is there?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
I don’t know which history you’ve been reading, but all churches have “changed stuff” for varying reasons. No one is exempt, including your jurisdiction.
- Status