Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

[ron77nyc]

Dear brother Ron,

There is actually one more condition for recognizing the infallibility of a certain teaching of the Church that most people overlook - maybe because it’s too obvious, or maybe because people simply forget or neglect it.

The subject of infalliblity involves not just Faith and morals, it involves Faith and morals within the Sacred Tradition of the Church. The “Church” is not just the West, but also the East. There must be testimony in the Decree that, aside from the 4 criteria you gave, the matter being defined is either “from God” or that it is “divinely revealed” or from the Church Catholic (not just the Latin Church) or some such other statement that makes it clear that what is being defined comes from the Sacred Tradition of the whole Church.

Applying that additional criterion will help you out much, I think. It will help you realize that while, for example, Ordinatio Sacerdatolis or Ineffabilis Deus has the character of infallibility, past statements about Limbo have not.

This makes sense when you’re talking about limbo but not when you’re talking about the Jews being saved by observing the old covenant. Salvation for Jews under the Mosaic covenant was never accepted after the New Testament was established and was never a tradition of the Church so why is it now an accepted truth?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ron,

This makes sense when you’re talking about limbo but not when you’re talking about the Jews being saved by observing the old covenant. Salvation for Jews under the Mosaic covenant was never accepted after the New Testament was established and was never a tradition of the Church so why is it now an accepted truth?

I was not aware that the Catholic Church teaches that the Jews can be saved because of the Mosaic Covenant. What I understand the Church teaches is that the Jews can be saved by God DESPITE only having the Mosaic Covenant. Further, if they are saved, it is only through the Grace of salvation obtained by Jesus Christ for us, applied to them according to the mercy of God through the mitigation of invincible ignorance. Further, the mediate source of this salvific Grace is the Catholic Church, and only the Catholic Church.

That is the meaning of EENS as the Church has always taught it. It should be remembered that the mitigation of invincible ignorance was a hallmark of Scholastic soteriology. One cannot divorce statements such as those contained in Unam Sanctam from that contemporary theological context.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sidbrown]

Dear brother Ron,

There is actually one more condition for recognizing the infallibility of a certain teaching of the Church that most people overlook - maybe because it’s too obvious, or maybe because people simply forget or neglect it.

The subject of infalliblity involves not just Faith and morals, it involves Faith and morals within the Sacred Tradition of the Church. The “Church” is not just the West, but also the East. There must be testimony in the Decree that, aside from the 4 criteria you gave, the matter being defined is either “from God” or that it is “divinely revealed” or from the Church Catholic (not just the Latin Church) or some such other statement that makes it clear that what is being defined comes from the Sacred Tradition of the whole Church.

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the Immaculate Conception or the papal infallibility, and yet they have been defined infallibly.

 

[mardukm]

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the Immaculate Conception or the papal infallibility, and yet they have been defined infallibly.

Yes, but only at the turn of the 19th/20th century, AFTER the dogma had already been promulgated. That is hardly an accurate gauge of the universal Church’s testimony before the dogma was promulgated, which is what Pius’ IX utilized. We even have statements from EO theologians at the turn of the 19th/20th century explicitly admitting that the only problem with the IC was its manner of dogmatization, not the teaching itself.

In any case, there are many EO and OO today who will admit that the IC is a valid theologoumenon, which does not violate the proscription of the IC, so there is hpoe for unity even on this matter.

As far as the infallibility, I have not met a single opponent of that dogma who actually understands what it actually teaches. So just from my own meager perspective, I’ve never met an EO who actually opposes the dogma.

Blessings

 

[sidbrown]

As far as the infallibility, I have not met a single opponent of that dogma who actually understands what it actually teaches. So just from my own meager perspective, I’ve never met an EO who actually opposes the dogma.

Blessings

orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf
Here is an Orthodox view on papal infallibility:
“the idea that Papal Infallibility
can be presented as independent of any conciliar consent and as “the
constant belief of the universal Church” is rejected.
Perhaps more convincingly, Orthodox theologians can argue that
Papal Infallibility as defined by the bull Pastor Aeternus does not
harmonize well with historical data, a problem also recognized in modern
Roman Catholicism. The fact that no list of Ex-Cathedra statement has or
in or likelihood will ever be produced further leads the reduction of this
dogma to the level of confusing and non-testable rhetoric.”

 

[mardukm]

orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf
Here is an Orthodox view on papal infallibility:
“the idea that Papal Infallibility
can be presented as independent of any conciliar consent

That’s not the way the Catholic Church presents it. That’s misunderstanding #1.

and as “the
constant belief of the universal Church” is rejected.

That’s just a statement without proof. St. Peter exercised infallibility without a Council. So did Pope St. Stephen (IMO). So did Pope St. Leo. So did Pope St. Agatho. Who here would claim that what they taught was Divine Truth even before conciliar consent? The idea that Truth depends on consensus is modernist foolishness. Let’s not confuse the notion of infallibility with the notion of ecumenicity. That’s misunderstanding #2.

Perhaps more convincingly, Orthodox theologians can argue that
Papal Infallibility as defined by the bull Pastor Aeternus does not
harmonize well with historical data, a problem also recognized in modern
Roman Catholicism.

What historical data? Pope Honorius who did not even teach anything to the Church? That’s the extent of the “historical data” that opposes the notion of papal infallibility. That’s not even a misunderstanding, just an empty claim.

The fact that no list of Ex-Cathedra statement has or
in or likelihood will ever be produced further leads the reduction of this
dogma to the level of confusing and non-testable rhetoric.”

So introduce a completely arbitrary criteria into the debate, and then say “you can’t prove it.” If that’s the best they can offer. It’s like the athiest who says, “you can’t prove that God exists, therefore He can’t exist.” It’s fallacious from the start.

Blessings

 

[John_oxios]

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the Immaculate Conception , and yet they have been defined infallibly.

But the byzantine Orthodox doo:
eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/more-on-the-immaculate-conception-in-eastern-orthodoxy/

Also, from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as achrantos, “the immaculate, spotless one”, no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed: “This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary …” (From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the feast); “She is conceived … the only immaculate one” (From the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same feast); or “Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled …” (From the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon for the same feast). No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God’s creation. For hundreds of years, the **Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title. *Even during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when some Western theologians doubted or denied the truth of her immaculate conception, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox theologians unanimously taught it. Two of Thomas Aquinas’ most ardent disciples among the Greeks disagreed with him on one point only, his failure to admit the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. Demetrios Kydonios (fourteenth century) translated some of Aquinas’ works into Greek, but vehemently opposed Thomas’ views on the immaculate conception.

For the Greek Eastern Orthodox, which claims NO Change since apostolic times we have:

**The Greek Orthodox Church’s belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, ** **then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation.** **

We both believe she became Immaculate at the annunciation…

and again;

Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians.*** The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. Its official position is rather a suspension of judgment than a true objection. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII’s letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.

Again the East claims fault in defining the mysteries of God, while the West protects the apostolic teachings through explanation of why we believe.

So we both believe Mary is Immaculate, because Christ could not be Subject to original sin, we just disagree on when she became Immaculate!

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the Immaculate Conception or the papal infallibility, and yet they have been defined infallibly.

Hi Sid,
again focusing on what you think are BIG differences, instead of looking for same teachings,

How about you Sid, do you accept these? Because the Greek Orthodox does accept Mary as Immaculate, in order to bear Christ.

Papal infallibilty? Well, since the early fourth century, the Eastern Church has always had a problem accepting the authority over the See of Rome.

know try to tell a High Patriarch his See is wrong in their teachings!

From the other incidences you’ve posted, your liable to be attacked!
We back our pope with faith and reason, They with fists o’ fury.

We both believe in our Church’s teachings we back them up differently.
But we do back thenm up!

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

**There is a difference between an idea which never existed before and an old idea that is done away with. **The first one is new; the second is an error.

Hi Ron,
You don’t seem like a Roman Catholic, writing about the RC but someone outside the RC complaining about the RCC. First you equal your opinion value with those of the greatest minds that ever existed, now your knocking their ideas out also?

As a child you get tired of crapping in your pants, and someone trains you with a new idea…my eldest son, as an infant, never would sit down or lay on his back when he pooped, he just about potty trained himself.

But ideas are a way of life, without them you die, without trying to study or express God, you die spiritually, the Church is very Much alive!

You could run another topic on this, Problems I have with the RCC, who doesn’t?
The average man resents authority? Hates his boss, wants the gov’t off the back,
yet remains at his job, stays in the U.S. and proclaims he is catholic.

Lots of times Catholics disagree just to disagree, me? I only disagree with those who preach agains the RCC. If its not infallible to you, find one more believable, i guarantee you, every church has it good points but they’re all missing something, which only can be found in the RCC. Jesus not only in Spiritual contact, but Jesus in Human Contact.

How about God manifested in the Flesh… That never existed before, however it was revealed in the O.T. The Jews made it Two messiahs,

Zec 6:12 and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD.

Zec 6:13 It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD, and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule upon his throne. And there shall be a priest by his throne, and peaceful understanding shall be between them both."'

Zec 6:14 **And the crown **shall be in the temple of the LORD as a reminder to Heldai, Tobi’jah, Jedai’ah, and Josi’ah the son of Zephani’ah.

Zec 6:15 “And those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the LORD; and you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. And this shall come to pass, if you will diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God.”

In Hebrew Scripture in vs 14 they have ‘Crowns’ Wheareas in the Septuagint ‘Crown’

Here in Christ God does something completely different, and You’d probably have a hard time believing Jesus Is God and Man, in the first century A.D.

How about man himself on this plain? physically doesn’t exist before, and then exists, and doesn’t exist?? The Sadducees didn’t believe in the Resurrection the Pharisee do? Hmmm

Every generation has their believers and Unbelievers, it’s just a matter whom you want to be, or whom you want to side with…

How about Noah? building a boat in the desert? did he laugh at God’s idea of building a boat, not a small boat but an ARK, in the middle of the desert? How about all the unbelievers who laughed at the preposterous notion of a toal flooding of the Earth? Only eight humans in all were saved, where would you be?

Me I want to be in the Boat! I’d pick up a hammer and support him.

1Pe 3:20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

you discussing this subject with a guy who came back to the Church in its height of news disclosures on poor priests, people leaving in droves…me fighting my way back in!

So before the Spirit gives Revelation? We’re suppose to know revelation?

cont’d

 

[John_oxios]

Hi Ron,

cont’d

Original sin, theologically defined in the fourth century, means their is no more room for discussion for those who no fault of their own, do not get baptized?

Hell was created for the fallen angels, hell was not created for men, innocent babies? Hmm I hope God has a better plan for them.

Since you beating around the bush on theological hypothesis,
let’s define idea: because intelligence is one thing that differentiates us from animals,

–noun

1.  **any conception existing** in the mind as a result of **mental understanding, awareness, or activity.**

2. a thought, conception, or notion: That is an excellent idea.
3. an impression: He gave me a general idea of how he plans to run the department.
4. an opinion, view, or belief: His ideas on raising children are certainly strange.

Philosophy .
a. a concept developed by the mind.

b. a conception of what is desirable or ought to be; ideal.

"Jesus came in the fulfillment of time’

What exactly does that mean to you?

It means: Christ came when Hebrew theology and Pagan philosophy peaked together.
The Logos was a term the Jews knew, God word (a power) and the Greeks Logos, the mind and reason of God.

John Marries two completely different peoples into one in Christ, In a sentence:

b. In the beginning was the Word: Word translated the ancient the Greek word Logos. The idea of the logos had deep and rich roots in both Jewish and Greek thinking.

i. Jewish rabbis often referred to God, especially in His more personal aspects, in terms of His word. They spoke of God Himself as “the word of God.” For example, ancient Hebrew editions of the Old Testament change Exodus 19:17 (Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God) to “Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet the word of God.” In the mind of the ancient Jews, the phrase “the word of God” could be used to refer to God Himself.

ii. The Greek philosophers saw the logos as the power which puts sense into the world, making the world orderly instead of chaotic. The logos was the power that set the world in perfect order and kept it going in perfect order. They saw the logos as the “Ultimate Reason” that controlled all things.

iii. Therefore, in this opening, John says to both Jews and Greeks: “For centuries you’ve been talking, thinking, and writing about the Word (the logos). Now I will tell you who He is.” John meets both Jews and Greeks where they are at, and explains Jesus in terms they already understood.

So if Christ came biblically in the fulfillment of time? Do we sit back and think of nothing? Or has man’s ideas developed even farther? Every-time you pick up a bible, every bible study you attend, you’ll find out something about God the Bible, or His Church you never knew or realized. Why stunt your growth by refusing to believe?
Jesus does not resist you!

Jam 5:6 You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you (NASB). Why resist his Church?

There are four senses in reading scripture ( Literal/ historial, the Allegorical , moral. tropological, anagological) and scripture is still to this day ever revealing.

Its a lot to take in!! I regularly fry my brains trying to learn!

you would kill it, just as the Sadducees and pharisees choked it in Jesus ’ time.
you’d interpret it out of God’s love and mercy for Men… babies included, Jesus came all man, who choose them. God is in control… and unbaptized babies, the innocent are in HIS hands, not hell. Maybe not heaven, but a place of non suffering. That’s fair, that’s graceful, that’s merciful.

Like i said, I am armed and ready to defend the hope that is within me

1Pe 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence."

God bless,
John

 

[ron77nyc]

Since you beating around the bush on theological hypothesis,

I’m not beating around the bush. If we were told from the beginning it was a theological hypothesis it would not be an issue now. That’s all I’m saying.

Like i said, I am armed and ready to defend the hope that is within me

1Pe 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence."

God bless,
John

You don’t need to be armed to the hilt. I have sanctified Christ as Lord in my heart also and I will make a defense to anyone who asks about that but I cannot defend everything the Church teaches if it doesn’t make sense to me. When it does I will defend it.

 

[John_oxios]

I’m not beating around the bush. If we were told from the beginning it was a theological hypothesis it would not be an issue now. That’s all I’m saying.

You don’t need to be armed to the hilt. I have sanctified Christ as Lord in my heart also and I will make a defense to anyone who asks about that but I cannot defend everything the Church teaches if it doesn’t make sense to me. When it does I will defend it.

Hi Ron77,

You can’t have it both ways, no such thing as being half in,
how do you defend something you refuse to investigate? Or understand? If you don’t accept limbo, that’s okay, it doesn’t give you the right to go off on the Church, you didn’t agree with purgatory a few posts back… but it seems you’ve accepted its premise.

As the lesson we learn from Job and his 9 chapters of suffering, yet he would not curse God:

“the Lord giveth and the LORD taketh away… Blessed be the LORD”

Find me a better Church, I’ll investigate it, if I haven’t already…
if not grin and bear it, pray and study be open for revelation, because you understand.

If you look for a wrong in anything you’re bound to find something wrong in it.

The Church is made of men, men of God, but men, some more devoted than others.
Read your Old Testament, see how many times The Temple leaders fell into moral debacle, yet this is the Temple teachings and all Christ defended. Sadducee’s and Pharisee had become more interested in the letter of the law to all, forgetting the intent of God’s Law. Yet Condemned how they treated men outside the temple, but inside! He insisted they listen to their teachings on Torah.
There will always be times men in the Church err, but according to Christ, not in faith or morals, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit til HE returns, there is no room for sense other than that.

So you were not specifically enlightened on how the Church has made Doctrine, Dogmas and traditional beliefs in its 2000 yr existence… how long are you digging? how long have you actual been investigating?
As a Mafia spokesman would say:
“You’ve been told” * … and I am in the Church, I am sorry you weren’t notified in a more timely fashion…

Bottom line:
Christ established a Church, so you can thumb your nose at it?
That will get you no-where, that’s where it lead me! Then I did a 180 degree turn… its the narrow road, acceptance is key

Jesus says:
Mat 11:16 "But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates,
17 ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn.’
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon’;
19 the Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.

I’ve heard this passage described as Jesus’ way of Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t.

We don’t always like the message, READ Church history, learn how it works and stop crying foul!

Yet without this Church how would you have come to the knowledge of Christ? All the knowledge you wish to know is available, you just have to do the work and research.

Billy Graham said, If you do not belong to a community, if you do not Worship on Sunday, You are an ineffective Christian.

Where 's the faith? If you don’t believe in an infallible Church?
How can you reconcile Christ’s promise of the Church? That it will be guided by the Holy Spirit TILL HIS RETURN?

God bless,
John*

 

[sidbrown]

That’s not the way the Catholic Church presents it. That’s misunderstanding #1.

That’s just a statement without proof. St. Peter exercised infallibility without a Council. So did Pope St. Stephen (IMO). So did Pope St. Leo. So did Pope St. Agatho. Who here would claim that what they taught was Divine Truth even before conciliar consent? The idea that Truth depends on consensus is modernist foolishness. Let’s not confuse the notion of infallibility with the notion of ecumenicity. That’s misunderstanding #2.

What historical data? Pope Honorius who did not even teach anything to the Church? That’s the extent of the “historical data” that opposes the notion of papal infallibility. That’s not even a misunderstanding, just an empty claim.

So introduce a completely arbitrary criteria into the debate, and then say “you can’t prove it.” If that’s the best they can offer. It’s like the athiest who says, “you can’t prove that God exists, therefore He can’t exist.” It’s fallacious from the start.

Blessings

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=712
The Catholic-Orthodox theological discussions, taking place in Vienna this week, hit a snag when the leader of the Russian Orthodox delegation lodged an emphatic dissent against the consensus that the early, undivided Church recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

That position is a definite deal-breaker, because the theme for discussion at this session of the joint theological commission is the understanding of papal primacy during the first Christian millennium—that is, prior to the schism that split the Christian world into East and West. The head of the Russian delegation, Metropolitan Hilarion, argued that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome had never been recognized in the East.

 

[John_oxios]

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=712
The Catholic-Orthodox theological discussions, taking place in Vienna this week, hit a snag when the leader of the Russian Orthodox delegation lodged an emphatic dissent against the consensus that the early, undivided Church recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

That position is a definite deal-breaker, because the theme for discussion at this session of the joint theological commission is the understanding of papal primacy during the first Christian millennium—that is, prior to the schism that split the Christian world into East and West. The head of the Russian delegation, Metropolitan Hilarion, argued that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome had never been recognized in the East.

Hello Sid,
It seems yu are dead set against reunification? any truth in that?

 

[John_oxios]

I’m not beating around the bush. If we were told from the beginning it was a theological hypothesis it would not be an issue now. That’s all I’m saying.

You don’t need to be armed to the hilt. I have sanctified Christ as Lord in my heart also and I will make a defense to anyone who asks about that but I cannot defend everything the Church teaches if it doesn’t make sense to me. When it does I will defend it.

hi Ron,

Protestants come to me with the same arguments, with no understanding of Church history, you can’t get through to them either.

God bless,
John

 

[mardukm]

The head of the Russian delegation, Metropolitan Hilarion, argued that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome had never been recognized in the East.

He said nothing of the sort. What he stated was that there is still no official statement from the EO on the matter, and that the prior statements were only preparatory from his own Synod’s perspective. The ROC does not speak for the entire EOC.

He admits that the East submitted doctrinal questions to Rome. I think his main concern is the idea of universal ordinary jurisdiction. I suspect he has never studied the comments of the Fathers from V1 to inform him of what that statement actually means. I suspect his understanding of “universal ordinary jurisdiction” is the usual polemic canard that the Pope can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants in the Church. If that’s what he thinks it means, I’m sure he will be pleasantly surprised to find the CC participants agreeing that the Pope does not have the authority do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, whereever he wants.

Blessings

 

[sidbrown]

He said nothing of the sort.

This is a direct quote from the article by Phil Lawler at:
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=712
“… Metropolitan Hilarion, argued that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome had never been recognized in the East.”

 

[mardukm]

This is a direct quote from the article by Phil Lawler at:
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=712
“… Metropolitan Hilarion, argued that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome had never been recognized in the East.”

Phil Lawler is not Met. Hilarion, nor is he a spokesman for Met. Hilarion. Like I said, Met. Hilarion said nothing of the sort.

Blessings

 

[ron77nyc]

hi Ron,

Protestants come to me with the same arguments, with no understanding of Church history, you can’t get through to them either.

God bless,
John

You don’t have to get through to them. Do what Jesus did; forgive them and accept them as they are. You can’t change anyone.

Knowing church history won’t help the situation. It’s filled with horror stories.

The Catholic Church is slowly realizing what other churches have known for years: the body of Christ is made up of all those who are called by the Father. The “mystical body” is united; not the visible body.

I don’t believe unity is possible in this life. People like to separate and divide. It’s in their nature. They’re good at it.

The Eastern Orthodox may have a better management model. If I were them I wouldn’t unite with a system that gives all the power to one man. It’s been proven to be the reason for corruption. Unite any group of people under one man an you’ll have the same problem; you’ll have a superficial type of unity but ultimately you’ll get corruption if the leader doesn’t have to answer to anyone.

 

[mardukm]

The Eastern Orthodox may have a better management model. If I were them I wouldn’t unite with a system that gives all the power to one man. It’s been proven to be the reason for corruption. Unite any group of people under one man an you’ll have the same problem; you’ll have a superficial type of unity but ultimately you’ll get corruption if the leader doesn’t have to answer to anyone.

Then they shouldn’t have any problem uniting with the Catholic Church. It might take some time to dispel the polemic myths and heal old wounds, but the teaching on papal infallibility and primacy properly understood as the V1 and V2 Fathers intended should pose no obstacle to unity.

Blessings