A
AugustTherese
Guest
I agree with that! Seems like you have been paying attention to Pope Francis’ words.
- Status
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
Indeed…the question remains though; Can the clause concerning Papal Supremacy be amended/redefined to have it pertain solely to the Latin Church?I think Vatican 1 might have screwed it up for good
V
Vonsalza
Guest
One can only hope. *crosses fingersVonsalza:
Indeed…the question remains though; Can the clause concerning Papal Supremacy be amended/redefined to have it pertain solely to the Latin Church?I think Vatican 1 might have screwed it up for good
Maybe if Italy gives back the Papal States - the loss of which being what prompted the declaration in the first place - he might infallibly declare that there is no papal infallibility. And then these boards would go nuts
Last edited:
C
Canvas
Guest
But Pius IX was already implying Papal Infallibility in 1854 when he proclaimed the Immaculate Conception. He still had the Papal States then.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
It wouldn’t be “amended”, but rather “refined”–and it would not be the first time in the history of the unified church, either. Just for openers, the Council of Constantinople refined the creed from Nicea . . .
It really isn’t hard to conceive, theoretically, of refinements to infallibility, for example, that would satisfy the Orthodox bishops at a council of the entire church (e.g., clarification of the requirements of consultation could essentially be a framework for small, limited topic councils–transportation isn’t the problem it was in centuries past).
And at such a council, past ex cathedra statements could be evaluated and ratified. (The statements aren’t generally objectionable in content to Orthodoxy, although the Immaculate Conception is a head-scratcher for Eastern thinking, as it is as unnecessary as making a dogma of “2+2=4” or "Jesus didn’t lead an army through the southern provinces of Rome.)
But I’m afraid the gorilla in the room remains the ROC (not ROCOR), which is unlikely to agree to anything that doesn’t raise its own precedence
hawk
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
Yes, I’ve never understood why both that and the Assumption were proclaimed as dogma. Were there really that many Marian heresies popping up during those time periods?
Indeed. It’s a sad state of affairs and I can see why it puts people off of Christianity in general…But I’m afraid the gorilla in the room remains the ROC (not ROCOR), which is unlikely to agree to anything that doesn’t raise its own precedence
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
LOL! I can see it now…it would cause a paradox that would rip open the very fabric of time itself!Maybe if Italy gives back the Papal States - the loss of which being what prompted the declaration in the first place - he might infallibly declare that there is no papal infallibility. And then these boards would go nuts
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I do not think heresy is the sole reason for an Ecumenical or Local Council to be convened, no? I mean, Vatican II did not anathematize anyone or heresy, yes?
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
That’s exactly right. Once upon a time, the number of Latin Christians roughly equaled (or might have been slightly exceeded by) the Greek Christians which roughly equaled (or might have been slightly exceeded by) Eastern Christians. Depends on where you want to draw the associated lines. Roughly the time of Augustine.MP_Kid:
I think you misspelled “Conquest and forced conversion to Islam”
hawk
When Islam finally marched upon Constantinople, it marched upon a city and a Byzantine Empire that had been ceaselessly back-bitten by their “Christian” “brothers” to the north and west. When Islam marched on to Vienna, the HRE hadn’t experienced the same problem to anything approaching the same degree.
Same goes for Islam’s attempts to march north and east from Iberia. The Iberian Kingdoms had little outside interference from Latin kingdoms like France and Genoa to divert their attentions away from the Moors after Martel stopped their advance in the skirmish at Tours.
In a very real way, blame for Byzantium’s (and thus Orthodoxy’s) destruction can be partially laid at the feet of the Latin west. If Novgorod and Kiev hadn’t gone Orthodox, it might have ceased to exist as a world religion altogether.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Where do you guys get all this information?! Can you recommend a work that I can read?
D
dochawk
Guest
In short, I have an amazing memory. Not photographic, but probably the last stage before that (I can typically remember where on the page something was . . .). So things accumulate.
The best source I can give you to assimilate quickly is to read older threads on the byzcath.org forums, particularly the “East and West” subform. DO NOT jump in early!!! You will embarrass yourself, and may be banned.
I’m also working my way through “The First Thousand Years”.
hawk
The best source I can give you to assimilate quickly is to read older threads on the byzcath.org forums, particularly the “East and West” subform. DO NOT jump in early!!! You will embarrass yourself, and may be banned.
I’m also working my way through “The First Thousand Years”.
hawk
Last edited:
C
Canvas
Guest
The Assumption (the Dormition of the Theotokos) is celebrated in the Orthodox Church and has been for centuries. It is an ancient tradition of the Church.
Only the Immaculate Conception is uniquely Catholic.
Only the Immaculate Conception is uniquely Catholic.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Like I’ve embarrassed myself on CAF?
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
Right. Vatican 1 dealt with other issues as well, for good or ill. Yet, was it really necessary to proclaim this as a dogma? Like dochawk said, 2+2=4…everyone knows that why do we have to say it?
Yes, however now we have the increasingly popular opinion of whether Mary actually died or not since, you know, the definition doesn’t explicitly state that she did or didn’t die only that her earthly live was complete. The old tradition is that yes, she died and 3 days later was assumed. (St. Thomas was late again for that!)
Again, why define it…2+2=4.
Last edited:
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
Don’t think like thatLike I’ve embarrassed myself on CAF?
Let’s call it a learning curve!
C
Canvas
Guest
That is one of the big differences between Western and Eastern Christianity. Western tends to be more legalistic and the Catholic Bishops LOVE formal doctrines. I have found that Western Christianity is less comfortable with “mystery”. Both the Catholic and Orthodox believe in the Real Presence. But Eastern Christians don’t try to explain it. It just is. It is beyond our understanding.
The Latin Rite however, has a formal definition for it—Transubstantiation. It is still a mystery, and beyond our comprehension, but it is just the nature of the Church to have a formal doctrine about it.
The Latin Rite however, has a formal definition for it—Transubstantiation. It is still a mystery, and beyond our comprehension, but it is just the nature of the Church to have a formal doctrine about it.
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
I agree. It’s why I ended up in the UGCC…I love how it’s ok to NOT know everything…to NOT have to define everything, to just have faith…for some reason I find this therapeutic.
D
dochawk
Guest
Like I’ve embarrassed myself on CAF?
You’ve shown a willingness to learn, so I don’t think you’ve embarrassed yourself.
However, by necessity, byzcath is far stricter, dealing with regular incursions of Roman Catholics coming to lecture us (incorrectly) about what we believe, and what it means.
There is also a far heavier Orthodox presence there than here.
Unfortunately, it’s traffic has dropped heavily over the last couple of years.
It was actually during one of it’s droughts that I looked here again. The recent changes make CAF a far less hostile environment to EC than it was in the past.
hawk
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
Yes, I’ve noticed this as well. I am enjoying the new format. Byzcath was also a great resource, but like you said, it’s pretty slow over there. The Orthodox forum can also be interesting…although decidedly more anit-catholic a lot of the time.
- Status