E
Erik
Guest
Does being prevailed upon or not being prevailed upon have any geographical reference?
- Status
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Church of Apostles did not get prevailed upon and remained true Church of Christ. Catholic Church is one I believe to hold that place. Rome has held immaculate faith but was plagued by heresies it did not succumb into.
A
AlNg
Guest
You say that there are divisions between Catholics and Orthodox, but when it is pointed out that there are divisions among Catholics, you say it is a joke. Serious divisions in religious belief are no joke.
Consider the following papal pronouncements:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence , “Cantate Domino,” 1441, *
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos , Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.
According to these and other pronouncements before Vatican II, it appears that the Church taught that a Jew, who did not convert before death, cannot go to heaven? However, Catholics today do not believe that. This shows a division between what is taught today and what was taught before.
This shows another division in the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI says that he was excommunicated. You say he was not. This indicates a huge division among Catholics on this issue.
There is serious division in the Catholic Church and yet it still remains standing.There are differences of course, between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But I don’t see why those differences would present an impossible barrier to reunion. After all, there was one Church East and West united in full communion until the Roman papal legate, Archbishop Humberto, placed a papal bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia.
E
Erik
Guest
With all due respect, but in all honesty. What is wrong with viewing the conquest of Constantinople in biblical terms? Drawing a parallel to the fall of Samaria in 722 BC. Or the fall of Jerusalem. In 586 BC? As a divine judgment for sins. How else would you view it from a biblical perspective? Just a random act of chance. With no spiritual, meaning or implication?
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
That’s actually very interesting point, my apologies I did not understand what you meant.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
except whether bombing of Japan was good or not is not serious religious difference…
Those can go to Heaven but they will become part of Church first, because in Heaven everybody converts to Catholicism. Because everyone who is in Heaven is part of Church.
Pope Paul VI said he was invalidly excommunicated, I said he was not validly excommunicated, we do not split on this. Clearly, excommunication by Cardinal Humbert was null and void- however Michael Cerularius may have been ipso facto (automatically) excommunicated for stepping on Eucharist.
Not entirely, it’s more complex than that. Stepping on Eucharist surely severed communion of Patriarch and Church, but formally until around 1300 Schism was not as significant in Russia/Poland, contrary to being significant in Italy/Greece.
I
Isaac14
Guest
That’s still a pretty broad statement. Sure, everyone understands that the Orthodox don’t view the Pope the same way Catholics do, but you imply we are lacking for more reasons? May I ask what those are?
I
Isaac14
Guest
Do you have a source for this statement? As a caveat, I am aware that many Orthodox have less than charitable things to say about Catholics, indeed going so far as to call you heretics, I am unaware of this being an official position. I certainly don’t view Catholics as heretics. I’m about 98% sure my Priest doesn’t and I would even wager that my Bishop does not view Catholics as heretics. Frankly, other than the historically recognized heresies (i.e. arianism, nestorianism, etc.) I’m not going to call anyone a heretic.
Yet, according to your canon law, I am, as an Orthodox Christian, welcome to commune in a Catholic Church. At a minimum, this would imply the Catholic view is not nearly as black and white as you make it seem.
I
Isaac14
Guest
I don’t think any of us here are in danger of indifferentism. Focusing on the great amount that is shared between us, while still acknowledging (but not overly dwelling on) the little that separates us is very much trying to heal those divisions and bring about restoration of communion. If we continue to focus on the fact we’re not in communion, we’ll continue to look for reasons to perpetuate that separation.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Fact you can commune as Orthodox Christian does not mean Church is in communion but you can be if you accept Papal teachings in heart without changing Church. However Orthodox Church has not done that so she is not in full communion. There is difference between Church and Christian.
Filioque is heresy according to Orthodox Patriarchs. Fact you do not view it as heresy is nice and I wouldnt be against you communing in Catholic Church cus of this. We must acknowledge obstacles of unity and resolve them, not ignore them and pretend we are in full communion.
Filioque is heresy according to Orthodox Patriarchs. Fact you do not view it as heresy is nice and I wouldnt be against you communing in Catholic Church cus of this. We must acknowledge obstacles of unity and resolve them, not ignore them and pretend we are in full communion.
Last edited:
I
Isaac14
Guest
I didn’t say we are in communion or that being allowed to receive means we are in communion. I made this point to indicate that the issue is not black & white. Canon 844 makes the point that because the Orthodox church has apostolic succession and valid sacraments, we are in a much different position in terms of receiving Catholic sacraments than reformation churches. We are both church and christian.
Improper understanding of Filioque can be heresy. While there are ways to understand the Filioque that are compatible with Orthodox theology, we view the addition of it to the Creed as being unnecessary. Regardless, though, Catholic and Orthodox theologians who are working through these issues don’t see filioque as an obstacle to restoration of communion. I’m happy to trust their work.
I have not said we should pretend there are no differences, nor pretend we are communion, but rather we should focus on the great amount that we do share (even if expressed differently) to build trust and to build charity. This will make it harder and harder for those who seek to focus solely on what separates us to have the loudest voice.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I know and I agree, but I was under impression Eastern Catholics were considered non-Orthodox because they’ve accepted Roman doctrine as truthful while not adhering to it. On this thread I have been critical of indifferentism, but I am aware that Orthodox Church has valid sacraments and union can be imminent, yet for now it is not there.Improper understanding of Filioque can be heresy. While there are ways to understand the Filioque that are compatible with Orthodox theology, we view the addition of it to the Creed as being unnecessary. Regardless, though, Catholic and Orthodox theologians who are working through these issues don’t see filioque as an obstacle to restoration of communion. I’m happy to trust their work.
OrbisNonSufficit:
We are Christians who constitute Church but while Orthodox Christians did accept Papal teachings before, Orthodox Church has not.
A
AlNg
Guest
Where did he say that? Please give a source. I thought he said that he lifted the excommunication which would not have to be done if the excommunication was invalid.
You have mentioned this several times without a source. Please give a source for that.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Not even Pope can lift invalid excommunication. Perhaps he meant automatic excommunication Patriarch Michael received for stepping on Eucharist.
A
AlNg
Guest
Where is your source for this? Otherwise it is defamation and slander.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Why would you deny allegation of it if Patriarch Michael refused to deny it and did not receive Cardinals supposed to investigate it? Evidence points towards him being guilty, but I wont be judge of that.
It’s simple, if Pope Paul retracted any valid excommunication it had to be for stepping on Eucharist. There was no other valid excommunication against Patriarch Michael.
Also not a slander, I said “perhaps”.
It’s simple, if Pope Paul retracted any valid excommunication it had to be for stepping on Eucharist. There was no other valid excommunication against Patriarch Michael.
Also not a slander, I said “perhaps”.
A
AlNg
Guest
What is your source for this.
A
AlNg
Guest
Let us see your source for this allegation.
A
AlNg
Guest
Because your allegation is unsourced and unsubstantiated. It appears that you have no source for this malicious allegation of yours.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Malicious? It was in fake bull delivered by Cardinal Humbert and is based on fact Michael Cerularius did send letters condemning Latin practices as heretical. By the way Patriarch Michael also used his Church position to usurp powers of Emperors and got deposed for being accused of heresy, but died before trial. So many excommunications Pope Paul could mean- though wikipedia agrees that it was purely symbolic act.
- Status