Eastern Orthodoxy and Purgatory, Immaculate Conception and Infallibility

[jam070406]

What about the teaching on slavery? Was it right to command that slaves be subject to their masters? Consider for example the young black African woman. Should she be subject to her white European slave master? Was this right?

“We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour.”

papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm

 

[sidbrown]

“We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour.”

papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm

Yes. this is a declaration against slavery in 1839, which is a change from the previous practice of allowing slavery. In fact, Catholic clergy and religious orders owned slaves and the Papal States used captured Muslim galley slaves. According to Cardinal Avery Dulles:“Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution.” Dulles also points out that “Peter and Paul exhort slaves to be obedient to their masters.” In 340, the synod of Gangra condemned the idea that slaves should free themselves.

 

[jam070406]

Yes. this is a declaration against slavery in 1839, which is a change from the previous practice of allowing slavery. In fact, Catholic clergy and religious orders owned slaves and the Papal States used captured Muslim galley slaves. According to Cardinal Avery Dulles:“Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution.” Dulles also points out that “Peter and Paul exhort slaves to be obedient to their masters.” In 340, the synod of Gangra condemned the idea that slaves should free themselves.

“We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.”

Thank God for the Pope! Everytime someone points out evil that certain “clergy” or “Bishops” did and you actually read encyclicals that denounce such practice, it just strengthens my Faith in the Papacy. Encyclicals really show the working of the Holy Spirit and dispell the myth that the Pope is not a servant of God but someone that is trying to be a ruler in control of everybody. Thanks Sid. God bless!

 

[JohnVIII]

Sorry, this is just bizarre. Jesus IS the Word.
The bread became Christ Himself at the Last Supper because He said so. Not because He needed a witness for it to happen.

bizarre???

“If I [Jesus] alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true. You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.” (John 5:31-35)

Jesus was baptized by John. Jesus also needed a second testimony by John; else the testimony of Jesus, according to our Lords very words, would “not be true”! Since no man can be greater than his lord, if Jesus had to have a second testimony, surely the pope has to have a second testimony (other bishops) too, else the popes testimony is not true.

 

[jam070406]

bizarre???

“If I [Jesus] alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true. You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.” (John 5:31-35)

Jesus was baptized by John. Jesus also needed a second testimony by John; else the testimony of Jesus, according to our Lords very words, would “not be true”! Since no man can be greater than his lord, if Jesus had to have a second testimony, surely the pope has to have a second testimony (other bishops) too, else the popes testimony is not true.

But He went on to state that He didn’t need the old Jewish principle to prove Truth, because He IS Truth and His works bore witness to that fact.

JOHN 5:36-47 36 But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish - the very works that I do - bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me.

 

[jam070406]

if Jesus had to have a second testimony, surely the pope has to have a second testimony (other bishops) too, else the popes testimony is not true.

The people at the time Jesus was dealing with them didn’t have the Holy Spirit. The Apostles often times were filled with the Holy Spirit when speaking Truth. Why would you deny this for the Pope?

 

[TP2]

bizarre???

“If I [Jesus] alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true. You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.” (John 5:31-35)

Jesus was baptized by John. Jesus also needed a second testimony by John; else the testimony of Jesus, according to our Lords very words, would “not be true”! Since no man can be greater than his lord, if Jesus had to have a second testimony, surely the pope has to have a second testimony (other bishops) too, else the popes testimony is not true.

Since your in union with The Pope you aleady believe the Pope is Infallible when Teaching about Faith or Morals so your inferences are a none issue.

 

[TP2]

“We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.”

Thank God for the Pope! Everytime someone points out evil that certain “clergy” or “Bishops” did and you actually read encyclicals that denounce such practice, it just strengthens my Faith in the Papacy. Encyclicals really show the working of the Holy Spirit and dispell the myth that the Pope is not a servant of God but someone that is trying to be a ruler in control of everybody. Thanks Sid. God bless!

There are many such writings by Popes. Interestingly enough, even though supposedly the schism sterted in 1054 ad, Eastern Orthodox still went to several Councils and confirmed the decisions by signing off on the canons. That’s interesting.

 

[TP2]

Father I got a theory about that one. I do not think Jesus will have chosen Judas right away like He did the others. Knowing that Judas will betray Him, I do not think Jesus will have chosen him like the rest. He probably say to Judas go home to think about it. I believe Judas must have wanted to be chosen. He insisted on it. If you are the Messiah then why do you not accept me? Judas wanted to join and Jesus accepted it. I believe God paid much attention to Judas. The character of Judas is like one who wishes not to be corrected unlike Peter who wishes to be corrected. We see Jesus warning Judas at the end when He says one of you is a devil and one of you will betray me. These are not condemnations but warnings to tell Judas don’t do this for if you do I may not be able to save you. Judas did not listen to the warnings and committed his betrayal anyway. This was costly for it brought to Judas to his greatest sin of despair. I believe Judas could have been forgiven had he listen to Jesus words. There is no sin God refuses to forgive. It is your own refusal that does it. Unlike Peter who repented with tears Judas went further downward to despair. This is how I see the difference between Judas and Peter. Judas did not have to stay with the Apostolic college. He could have left anytime. If he did not believe in Jesus why did he stayed on? In the St.John Bosco movie the Saint told the boys you can leave anytime you want to. Why Judas stayed is puzzling. Anyway these were some of my thoughts Father on this. Sometimes a priest enters and decides to do his will and not the Lord’s. May be Judas was this type of person. Anyway God Bless you Father! Its getting late so I must retire.

Good analyses. But scripture does show how others were rejected to be in The Apostles circle. MATTHEW 8:15-22; Luke 9:50-60…

I agree with you comletely that “Judas had free will and was his own person”… But Jesus cannot be said to have felt being forced or willed into accepting anyone to be Apostle. But like I said. It would make for common sense.

 

[TP2]

Amen.

Is there any hope for my soul because:

• I was married twice, got an annulment on the 1st, but I believe both marriages were sacramental and valid
• I don’t accept Infallibility
• I believe Rome and the EO and the OO are ‘right now’ parts of the One Catholic Church - I guess that makes me an ecumenist

On topic: ‘Infallibility’ -

Even our Lord said, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true” (John 5:31) Even though our Lord Jesus was of course ‘Infallible’, yet as He humbled himself as a man he became fallible. He never erred of course, but as a man He could have. Otherwise the principle of ‘Two or three witnesses shall every word be established’ would not apply. The witness of Jesus, as God, could have been all by itself a true witness, because that which is perfect has no need of anything else to perfect it; but as a man Jesus has need of a second witness for His word to be true!

If the Fundamentalist Protestants did not claim that the Bible was ‘Infallible’, then they would not be able to also claim that they have no need of Holy Tradition. If the pope is ‘Infallible’ then there is no need of an Ecumenical Counsel. In short, if anything is ‘Infallible’, we have no need for the rest. This is because “when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor 13:10).

An ‘Infallible’ man in counsel with a ‘Fallible’ man is like a man talking to his own shadow. The shadow needs the man to exist, but the man does not need the shadow to exist. If the ‘Infallible’ pope is in counsel with ‘Fallible’ bishops why would the pope not “do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all” as the Apostolic Canon says. Or, how can there be “concord” between a true man & a synod of shadows?

I put this argument forth not to convince anyone; rather I want someone to convince me; so that I can believe the same as all the Catholic Church teaches!

Happy in Christ & in His Church!
JohnVIII

Dear sir, not at all. It would be a heresy to say that Jesus was not speaking Infallibly since the term means “Correct” and not “Impeccable”… You are confusing Paul’s letter in Phillipians 2:6 where the point is about “HUMILITY” not TEACHING THE TRUTH. Jesus had a Divine Mandate to correct and Teach The Gospel otherwise how do we know anything he said was true? This is totally erroneous thought.

Listen, as I said earlier. Do you think that God woud allow “ERROR” to be BOUND in Heaven? This is the best argument for Infallibity that can be found. It is superbly told.

Can anything in heaven ne ERRONEOUS just because it was “Bound on Earth”? In Matthew 16 Jesus gives Peter not only the Powers to Bind and Loose on Earth but also that this will be BOUND and LOOSED in Heaven!!! So if Peter makes a mistake, are many of you Eastern Orthodox saying the mistake will be BOUND in Heven, too? And since Peter had successors as did the Eastern Orthodox, too… Then Infallibility in a misnomer. It is FACT written in the words of Jesus in Mt 16 and Jn 23. But The Keys were ONLY given to Peter meaning quite essentially that without Peter or His Successors there can be no binding and loosing given hence wisely The EO does not believe in it while they practice it by making Saints. How do they know they are in Heaven without Infallibility???

Whatever You Bind On EARTH will be BOUND IN Heaven… <<< That’s Jesus speaking. If there is no ERROR in Heaven, then there can be NO ERROR made on Earth. But ya gotta be in Union with Peter and His Apostles for this to be True, since as you will agree, Jesus spoke this to ALL the 12 after the Resurrection, yet as St John Chrysostom says,“Peter it was who carrieth The Keys of the Kingdom Alone.” Simple. Period and Exclamation Point! If it is Bound In Heaven, It Better be True. Or else you make Jesus in Mt 16 a liar. I don’t believe you do, good people that you are and sensible.

 

[TP2]

Amen.

Is there any hope for my soul because:

• I was married twice, got an annulment on the 1st, but I believe both marriages were sacramental and valid
• I don’t accept Infallibility
• I believe Rome and the EO and the OO are ‘right now’ parts of the One Catholic Church - I guess that makes me an ecumenist

On topic: ‘Infallibility’ -

Even our Lord said, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true” (John 5:31) Even though our Lord Jesus was of course ‘Infallible’, yet as He humbled himself as a man he became fallible. He never erred of course, but as a man He could have. Otherwise the principle of ‘Two or three witnesses shall every word be established’ would not apply. The witness of Jesus, as God, could have been all by itself a true witness, because that which is perfect has no need of anything else to perfect it; but as a man Jesus has need of a second witness for His word to be true!

If the Fundamentalist Protestants did not claim that the Bible was ‘Infallible’, then they would not be able to also claim that they have no need of Holy Tradition. If the pope is ‘Infallible’ then there is no need of an Ecumenical Counsel. In short, if anything is ‘Infallible’, we have no need for the rest. This is because “when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor 13:10).

An ‘Infallible’ man in counsel with a ‘Fallible’ man is like a man talking to his own shadow. The shadow needs the man to exist, but the man does not need the shadow to exist. If the ‘Infallible’ pope is in counsel with ‘Fallible’ bishops why would the pope not “do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all” as the Apostolic Canon says. Or, how can there be “concord” between a true man & a synod of shadows?

I put this argument forth not to convince anyone; rather I want someone to convince me; so that I can believe the same as all the Catholic Church teaches!

Happy in Christ & in His Church!
JohnVIII

What “you” consider to be valid and sacramental has no bearing if The Church says they are not. If you believe the words of the Gospels, Then you have to ascent to the Faith of The Church without rebelling against it. This will not help you when you stand before God because you know better than to speak such blithery.

"Faith Is Believeing Without Seeing, But Not Without A Reason"

 

[JohnVIII]

The people at the time Jesus was dealing with them didn’t have the Holy Spirit. The Apostles often times were filled with the Holy Spirit when speaking Truth. Why would you deny this for the Pope?

Of course I would not deny the Holy Spirit for the Pope! I just don’t see how any of the gifts and callings of God are ever given in an infallible way.

But…

Since your in union with The Pope you aleady believe the Pope is Infallible when Teaching about Faith or Morals so your inferences are a none issue.

…I guess I’ll just follow the princple blindly until I can some day apprehend it.

…Do you think that God woud allow “ERROR” to be BOUND in Heaven? This is the best argument for Infallibity that can be found…

OK, this is a good point!

Thanks!

 

[sidbrown]

“We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.”

Thank God for the Pope! Everytime someone points out evil that certain “clergy” or “Bishops” did and you actually read encyclicals that denounce such practice, it just strengthens my Faith in the Papacy. Encyclicals really show the working of the Holy Spirit and dispell the myth that the Pope is not a servant of God but someone that is trying to be a ruler in control of everybody. Thanks Sid. God bless!

This was published in 1839. But was it consistent with the teaching before that? Cardinal Avery Dulles has raised doubts on that question.

 

[jam070406]

This was published in 1839. But was it consistent with the teaching before that? Cardinal Avery Dulles has raised doubts on that question.

Don’t care about Dulles’s opinion. I’ll go with the many Popes that have written on the matter.

Did you even read the encyclical?

"It is at these practices that are aimed the Letter Apostolic of Paul III, given on May 29, 1537, under the seal of the Fisherman, and addressed to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, and afterwards another Letter, more detailed, addressed by Urban VIII on April 22, 1639 to the Collector Jurium of the Apostolic Chamber of Portugal. In the latter are severely and particularly condemned those who should dare ‘to reduce to slavery the Indians of the Eastern and Southern Indies,’ to sell them, buy them, exchange them or give them, separate them from their wives and children, despoil them of their goods and properties, conduct or transport them into other regions, or deprive them of liberty in any way whatsoever, retain them in servitude, or lend counsel, succour, favour and co-operation to those so acting, under no matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach that this way of acting is allowable and co-operate in any manner whatever in the practices indicated.

Benedict XIV confirmed and renewed the penalties of the Popes above mentioned in a new Apostolic Letter addressed on December 20, 1741, to the Bishops of Brazil and some other regions, in which he stimulated, to the same end, the solicitude of the Governors themselves. Another of Our Predecessors, anterior to Benedict XIV, Pius II, as during his life the power of the Portuguese was extending itself over New Guinea, sent on October 7, 1462, to a Bishop who was leaving for that country, a Letter in which he not only gives the Bishop himself the means of exercising there the sacred ministry with more fruit, but on the same occasion, addresses grave warnings with regard to Christians who should reduce neophytes to slavery."

 

[Formosus]

Jam

I am not expert on the Church and slavery so perhaps my opinion is weak here, but these quotes seem only to be referring to the Native American populations of the new world, not to African slaves bought and transported across the Atlantic. They aren’t outright condemnations of slavery, just saying that we shouldn’t enslave certain people…

 

[jam070406]

Jam

I am not expert on the Church and slavery so perhaps my opinion is weak here, but these quotes seem only to be referring to the Native American populations of the new world, not to African slaves bought and transported across the Atlantic. They aren’t outright condemnations of slavery, just saying that we shouldn’t enslave certain people…

I’m no expert on the Church & slavery either. But it seems pretty consistent that we shouldn’t enslave innocent people, no matter who they are. And I believe the encyclical mentions “blacks” if you were to go back and read it.
To be honest, I’m really not sure what Sid’s point is in bringing up slavery to begin with. Perhaps to attempt to debunk the Papacy?

 

[sidbrown]

To be honest, I’m really not sure what Sid’s point is in bringing up slavery to begin with.

One last thought for you. Do you think that Christ would allow even one erroneous Doctrine to be Bound In Heaven? I think not. If Jesus said to Peter in Mt 16. “Whatever you shall bind on Earth, WILL BE Bound in heaven”, do you think Jesus Christ would ever allow Falsehood to be bound in Heaven? Think about that… .

My impression is the Cardinal Avery Dulles sees a problem with this as regards the teaching on slavery.

 

[jam070406]

My impression is the Cardinal Avery Dulles sees a problem with this as regards the teaching on slavery.

Perhaps you can cite the infallible Doctrine that approves of slavery?

 

[TP2]

Of course I would not deny the Holy Spirit for the Pope! I just don’t see how any of the gifts and callings of God are ever given in an infallible way.

But…

…I guess I’ll just follow the princple blindly until I can some day apprehend it.

OK, this is a good point!

Thanks!

I like a guy whose gonna think sometimes… So when Jesus gave the Authority To Bind and loose On Earth without involving Heaven, I’d agree that Infallibility might need to be needed to be looked at again. But when Jesus continues and says that the same is equally BOUND in HEAVEN…welll…now… We all know there ain’t no error in Heaven. Or do some here think so???

 

[Formosus]

Father, then are all the apostles infallible? Christ gave them the same power to bind and loose?