I am considering the Orthodox Church

[jam070406]

And they’ve had precious few heresies and avoided anything even remotely as gigantic as the Reformation rebels that Catholicism faced.

How bout Islam??

 

[josie_L]

No further comments

That’s completely invalid as the papacy existed before the Vatican state, moreover, the reason for its creation were valid and necessary (considering the previous decades of historical events).

Bear in mind that this arrangement of a papal state, is to guarantee that Church is free from secular and political interference so that She can preach the pure and undiluted Gospel. It may not be the best possible arrangement, but we have to take account of the historical developments and evolution, and who knows in future what other arrangements may be made possible by the Holy Spirit.

The Eastern wing of the historic Church – the Eastern Orthodox Churches – did not enjoy such freedom, and oftentimes Muslim rulers dictated who were to be their Patriarchs. This caused much trouble in Catholic Orthodox relations. Even today, with countries such as communist China and Vietnam, the Vatican has to deal with them at a state-to-state level to try to influence who should be the Bishops. Unfortunately, China has appointed illicit bishops not approved by Rome, who will not challenge the Chinese government on such things as abortion. This has caused an underground Church. So there are still many challenges in the emerging global Church.

davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_kingdoms.htm

Do you deny that he can appoint whom ever he wishes or deny whomever he wishes if he pleased to do so? Not to mention that if we look in the history of your church we find that some Popes did just that literally.

I stated that the Pope confirms decisions made, and if some popes (which you have not specified) have done this how does this signify, i.e., were all Orthodox bishops throughout history loyal to the traditions/decrees of your church?

If he wish to confirm he does at his pleasure and if he doesn’t no one can challenge his decisions.

Oh goodness me, another person who believes they can argue against the divine institution of the papacy by using scare tactics.

where is the deposit of faith in the I.C. or the Purg. or the the headship of the pope on the whole universal Church as a “Dogma” or …etc…etc…etc…

First off, I’d like to say did the early Church fathers define dogmatically the whole of the apostolic faith? Second, the I.C. and purgatory are implicit in scripture and tradition. Here is an excerpt from “The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” delineating the Catholic position on the Immaculate conception:

Neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Still, they teach it implicitly, in two fundamental notions.

a) Mary’s most perfect purity and holiness. St. Ephrem says: “Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain” (Carm. Nisib. 27). St. Augustine says that all men must confess themselves sinners, “except the Holy Virgin Mary, whom I desire, for the sake of the honour of the Lord, to leave entirely out of the question, when the talk is of sin.” According to the context, however, this must be taken as referring to freedom from personal sins.

b) The similarity and contrast between Mary and Eve. Mary, is on the one hand, a replica of Eve in her purity and integrity before the Fall, on the other hand, the antitype of Eve, in so far as Eve is the cause of corruption, and Mary the cause of salvation. St. Ephrem teaches: “Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life” (Op. syr. II 327), Cf. St. Justin, Dial. 100, St. Irenaeus Adv. haer. III 22, 4 ; Tertullian, de carne Christi, 17.

Freedom from original sin does not necessarily involve freedom from all defects which came into the world as a punishment for sin. Mary, like Christ Himself, was subject to the general human defects, in so far as these involve no moral imperfection. Concupiscence cannot be reckoned among these since it excites a person to commit acts which are materially contrary to God’s Law, even where, through lack of assent, they are not formal sins. It would be incompatible with Mary’s fullness of grace and her perfect purity and immaculate state to be subject to motions of inordinate desire."

The council of Trent declared: “No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin.”

Mary’s sinlessness may be deduced from the text: Luke I. 28: “Hail , full of Grace!”, since personal moral defects are irreconcilable with fullness of Grace.

to be continued. . . .

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Do you consider Islam a heresy that sprang forth from Orthodox Christianity? I consider it a completely different religion that came from Saudi Arabia, gathered steam under a war-mongering band of arabs with a jihad/conquest mentality and poor Orthodoxy got surrounded by and conquered, in some areas, by its menacing grip. The Protestant Reformation came out of Catholicism. Comparing the two is apples and oranges.

How bout Islam??

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Heresies abounded through Christianity in those first thousand years in the East and West. The pope led the charge and was usually the final word in stamping out heresy. That’s what gave the office of the Holy Father such luster, a warrior against heresy. Pelagianism and some other heresies took place in the West and men like Augustine were on the prowl against them all the time. Of course Arianism and the other “isms” mostly came from the East as well. And when Christendom was united it fought these “isms” together as a family with Rome at the head of the table. But Orthodox point out, and it is true, that the Reformation was the mother of all heresies and that sprang from the West and was underestimated, not contained, and spread and spread to this day error all over the globe. I’m simply giving Orthodoxy credit for doing a good, solid job in the last 1,000 years or so in not having much heresy and being able to contain any small ones that crept up despite Orthodoxy not having a papacy, magesterium, and zillions of pages of canon law, etc. I’m simply giving them the credit and compliment they deserve, that’s all. Would Orthodoxy have done any better were it in the West dealing with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the gang? One can only speculate…

Interestingly, most Heresies were pulmigated out of Constaninople, where as not a single heresy was pulmiaged by Rome. Just food for thought.

 

[crazzeto]

Heresies abounded through Christianity in those first thousand years in the East and West. The pope led the charge and was usually the final word in stamping out heresy. That’s what gave the office of the Holy Father such luster, a warrior against heresy. Pelagianism and some other heresies took place in the West and men like Augustine were on the prowl against them all the time. Of course Arianism and the other “isms” mostly came from the East as well. And when Christendom was united it fought these “isms” together as a family with Rome at the head of the table. But Orthodox point out, and it is true, that the Reformation was the mother of all heresies and that sprang from the West and was underestimated, not contained, and spread and spread to this day error all over the globe. I’m simply giving Orthodoxy credit for doing a good, solid job in the last 1,000 years or so in not having much heresy and being able to contain any small ones that crept up despite Orthodoxy not having a papacy, magesterium, and zillions of pages of canon law, etc. I’m simply giving them the credit and compliment they deserve, that’s all. Would Orthodoxy have done any better were it in the West dealing with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the gang? One can only speculate…

And here you are starting out on the right track, yes it is the teaching of the magisterium which has perserved genuine Orthodoxy. The Eastern Church has done a good job maintaining certain traditions, but lack the teaching authority in their own right. This is the explaniation as to why, even those they have been faced with many heresies over the years including encroaching protistantism they have not been able to respond with a definitive teaching statement, i.e. through an ecumenical council.

Rather, thier response is to cling to more or less 7 counciles and try to claim “if it ain’t there, it ain’t Orthodox”. This of course ignores many area’s of faith (some important) in which the Orthodox have indeed been quite innovative, for instance their views on the After life (current prominent theology among some developed in the 1700’s, which rejects the idea that anyone is in heaven). Would the Orthodox have done better against the protistants? Well I submit that the fact that protistants do indeed survive and thrive with in Orthodox territory makes the answer a definitive yes.

I think ironically that which sheilded the Orthodox from the Heresy of Protistantism was ircononically, the massive suppression of the Orthodox in their home territories. Through out most of the territories they were suppressed by Muslims, or in others by militant Athiests. Under such conditions, the freedom to err in the way Luther & Co did simply does not exist.

 

[jam070406]

Do you consider Islam a heresy that sprang forth from Orthodox Christianity? I consider it a completely different religion that came from Saudi Arabia, gathered steam under a war-mongering band of arabs with a jihad/conquest mentality and poor Orthodoxy got surrounded by and conquered, in some areas, by its menacing grip. The Protestant Reformation came out of Catholicism. Comparing the two is apples and oranges.

No, but it does display a polemic double standard doesn’t it?
You can blame the Protestant revolt on the Catholic Church. When in reality it was Martin Luther that took some Catholic Truths and perverted them. Much like Mohammad took some Christian Truths and perverted them. Islam began as heresy and became a new religion.

Btw, Calvanism was reeking havoc in eastern European Orthodox regions. It’s partly responsible for some of the Eastern Churches seeking union with Rome again.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Jam,
I am not “blaming” the Protestant Reformation necessarily ON Catholicism, just simply stating that it came from it. Isn’t that just a fact? And isn’t it also true that Islam did NOT come out of Orthodoxy? Was Muhammad an Orthodox bishop who decided to receive revelations upon Mt. Hira and become the Prophet of Allah, rally the troops in Medina and march on Mecca? How is Islam in any way related to Orthodox Christianity? Islam did NOT begin as a heresy? Where did you obtain your information about Islam? Islam came from a pagan, Muhammad, married to a woman, Khadija, who owned a caravan business. Yes he interacted with Jews and Christians and no doubt stole his ideas for his new religion from them both but how in God’s green earth do you draw the conclusion it was a heresy? It was always a seperate religion altogether nurtured in pagan Arabia and if anything it was Muhammad’s reaction to the primitive paganism of his land and the desire for monotheism as he heard it from Jews and Christians. A heresy has to start within Christianity to begin with. Islam was never remotely Christian. Drawing ideas from Judaism and Christianity a heresy does not make.

Your last point about Calvinism is a valid one.

How does it display a polemic double standard?

No, but it does display a polemic double standard doesn’t it?
You can blame the Protestant revolt on the Catholic Church. When in reality it was Martin Luther that took some Catholic Truths and perverted them. Much like Mohammad took some Christian Truths and perverted them. Islam began as heresy and became a new religion.

Btw, Calvanism was reeking havoc in eastern European Orthodox regions. It’s partly responsible for some of the Eastern Churches seeking union with Rome again.

 

[jam070406]

Hi Jam,
I am not “blaming” the Protestant Reformation necessarily ON Catholicism, just simply stating that it came from it. Isn’t that just a fact? And isn’t it also true that Islam did NOT come out of Orthodoxy? Was Muhammad an Orthodox bishop who decided to receive revelations upon Mt. Hira and become the Prophet of Allah, rally the troops in Medina and march on Mecca? How is Islam in any way related to Orthodox Christianity? Islam did NOT begin as a heresy? Where did you obtain your information about Islam? Islam came from a pagan, Muhammad, married to a woman, Khadija, who owned a caravan business. Yes he interacted with Jews and Christians and no doubt stole his ideas for his new religion from them both but how in God’s green earth do you draw the conclusion it was a heresy? It was always a seperate religion altogether nurtured in pagan Arabia and if anything it was Muhammad’s reaction to the primitive paganism of his land and the desire for monotheism as he heard it from Jews and Christians. A heresy has to start within Christianity to begin with. Islam was never remotely Christian. Drawing ideas from Judaism and Christianity a heresy does not make.

Your last point about Calvinism is a valid one.

How does it display a polemic double standard?

Points taken. I wouldn’t blame Catholicism for the reformation any more then I would blame Orthodoxy for Islam. Gotta run.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

How is it that the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Orthodox Church has managed to maintain unity of doctrine without papal supremacy and papal infallibility?

Good question; I never heard of a Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Church?

But if you mean Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church? They have managed to recieve their doctrine from Peter and his successors in the Popes, in unity with successors of the Apostles. They maintain this apostolic faith in infancy since these Orthodox seperated themselves from the Pope. These Orthodox not in communion with the Pope without an infallible teacher, do well to maintain their Apostolic faith “on the milk” being careful not to add to it or change it without an infallible teacher. Now this is what gives the legitamate claim to Orthodoxy. I don’t know about the legitamacy of Orthodoxy in the west?

 

[John_Larocque]

If the liturgy is one of the main elements that has helped the Orthodox not slide into heterodoxy, than what can be said for faith-destroying liturgies such as the one I mentioned in a previous post on the L.A. religious conference? What do such celebrations do to the deposit of the faith?

 

[Monica4316]

If the liturgy is one of the main elements that has helped the Orthodox not slide into heterodoxy, than what can be said for faith-destroying liturgies such as the one I mentioned in a previous post on the L.A. religious conference? What do such celebrations do to the deposit of the faith?

most are not like this

 

[Monica4316]

some info about the Papacy…

(btw I’m a convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism )

Origins of Peter as Pope
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

Was Peter the rock?
davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm

Isaiah and the Papacy
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6486723:

How is it that the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Orthodox Church has managed to maintain unity of doctrine without papal supremacy and papal infallibility?

Good question; I never heard of a Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Church?

But if you mean Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church? They have managed to recieve their doctrine from Peter and his successors in the Popes, in unity with successors of the Apostles. They maintain this apostolic faith in infancy since these Orthodox seperated themselves from the Pope. These Orthodox not in communion with the Pope without an infallible teacher, do well to maintain their Apostolic faith “on the milk” being careful not to add to it or change it without an infallible teacher. Now this is what gives the legitamate claim to Orthodoxy. I don’t know about the legitamacy of Orthodoxy in the west?

Yes, I mean the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.

The heart of the matter here seems to be the fact that some Christians are not “in communion with the pope.” I’m one of them. So what does “being in communion with the pope” actually mean/entail? Does the fact that I’m not in communion with the pope affect my salvation?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

(btw I’m a convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism )

Do you mind declaring why you turned away from Orthodoxy?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[crazzeto]

Do you mind declaring why you turned away from Orthodoxy?

Cordially,
Mick

Some of us might say they embrased it

 

[Ignatios]

So, in your understanding the Pope defined the dogma to appease the Franciscans.

I didn’t research to find out whether the pope did this to appease the Fransiscan or not to appease the Frans. why not research it and let me know the outcome.

He draws from Tradition, which includes Eastern Saints.

Yes I think I understood from a previous post that this is what you beleive it is, and we went through this already.

According to what authority?

The Deposit of Faith or the Holy Tradition.

Um, no. Apparantly you don’t understand the Church’s teaching on infallibility.

OOO I understand it alright, and you will truly understand it too if you don’t let your pride get in the way.

GOD bless †††

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6489012:

Do you mind declaring why you turned away from Orthodoxy?

Cordially,
Mick

Some of us might say they embrased it

I guess. But I’m more interested in what Monica might say.

Inquisitively,
Mick

 

[Ignatios]

And since when have any of the dogmas

Please, name me one dogma that was accepted and believed by all, always and everywhere?

Edit: The Vincentian canon is useful with regard to studying the fathers/traditions but it is not fail-safe.

Read the Nicene Creed.
The Vincentian canon is more then what you are trying to shrink it down to, it is the Creteria of the truth that teh Church goes by, or as it is called sometimes it is the Yard stick that the Church measures assertions with.

Note: St Vincent only Compiled this canon, BUT the origin of this Canon is gathered from the Bible itself, so if it fails then the Bible did too, hence we all are dead in our sins i.e. if your suggestion is true.

 

[jam070406]

I didn’t research to find out whether the pope did this to appease the Fransiscan or not to appease the Frans. why not research it and let me know the outcome.

I’ll pass. But if you like, I can post a link to the VI documents so you can see what they actually say.

Yes I think I understood from a previous post that this is what you beleive it is, and we went through this already.

ok.

The Deposit of Faith or the Holy Tradition.

Origen (A.D. 244)“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” (Homily 1in ULL,94)

Liturgy of St. Basil:
Priest: Especially for our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary.

People: All of creation rejoices in you, O full of grace: the assembly of angels and the human race. You are a sanctified temple and a spiritual paradise, the glory from whom God was incarnate and became a child; our God, existing before all ages. He made your womb a throne, and your body more spacious than the heavens. All of creation rejoices in you, O full of grace. Glory to you.

OOO I understand it alright, and you will truly understand it too if you don’t let your pride get in the way.

Does your understanding align itself with Catholic Teaching? Otherwise your understanding is erroneous. I’ll take that pride comment as a genuine concern on your part and not a personal attack.

GOD bless †††

You too!

 

[jam070406]

Does the fact that I’m not in communion with the pope affect my salvation?

Interesting question.
If the Successor of Peter, and the Bishops in communion with him, state that practicing artificial contraception puts one in a state of mortal sin and you know this, reject this, and do it anyway, do you think it affects your salvation?