C
Christianapologist
Guest
How do we know Peter was Catholic…? Scripture reference…?
- Status
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Church defines Councils, Sacraments and wrote Gospel. Chuch is built upon Peter. I never sait St. Peter and his successors take precedence over it, no. I am implying they guard it in it’s true understanding.
As Catholic, I am bound to believe in every single Ecumenical Council (including of course Florence and Lyons) being correct as well as all Papal dogmas being correct. If I do not, I anathematize myself. If indeed there is something wrong in what Church has taught infallibly then it means Church is wrong and not a true Bride of Christ. Then it is better to flee from it because She is not immaculate Bride she professes to be and then I should just convert to another denomination. If She truly is Bride of Christ and correct in everything, why repudiate Truth to please those outside the Church?
That’s fine, after all we aren’t talking about calendar being one and universal. Paul is simply saying that there might be mistakes in it since it came from outside of Church. I do not agree with that view as I believe Palamism in it’s current form to be correct. If however Paul’s view was correct, Orientalum Ecclesiarum or Orientale Lumen do not contain anything that says East can develop any traditions they want. It explicitly states it guards Apostolic traditions of the East. If Palamism is not Apostolic (I believe it is), then those documents have no weight. If it is Apostolic, we do not need documents to safeguard it.
We come to understanding between our communions gradually. If we back down on anything binding or infallible, then in-fact our Church has erred and as such we can not in good conscience follow Catholic Church. In the end, dialogue exists to define what has not been defined and to clear out misconceptions. To abandon invalid traditions and adopt Apostolic ones. To correct non-infallible statements in Church or to uncover that Church indeed is not True Church by uncovering that it’s infallible pronouncements have been false (hence they are not infallble hence Church is not infallible hence Church is not True Church of Christ). For example Catholics can back down on centralization to Rome, on liturgy and on liturgical calendars. They can not back down on Papal Infallibility… because then they stop being Catholics.
I
Isaac14
Guest
Is submission to the Pope an infallibly defines requirement of salvation? If so then I repeat myself that the dialogue should be broken off because that is the one step the Orthodox will never take.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Yes, in a certain way. Again, not in centralized way or anything like that. I am talking more about Pope St. Gregory’s model of the Church.
God makes things possible and impossible. Besides, Church is meant to try and reach out to everyone. If they do or do not accept does not change Her mission.
I
Isaac14
Guest
How many different ways are there to submit to the Pope? Ultimately that means giving up their autocephaly which some churches have held for much longer than there has been schism.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Is it not the the Bishops together, whom have the authority to bind and loose that guard the Truth? The Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth.
You do no need to answer my question necessary for as someone who studied and was embedded in Roman Catholic apologetics I know what your answer will likely be. Although, I enjoy your thoughts in this discussion.
Happy Holy Thursday to you!
ZP
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
No, it doesn’t. Not in Pope St. Gregory’s view.
Yes, Apostles had offices to guard the Chruch in Truth. Apostles have successors- Bishop in communion with St. Peter, through his successor. We do not believe in one universal Bishop over entire Church while other Bishops are simply his vicars. That should not be the idea ever.
Same to you!
Thank you, it is nice having you around as well
It almost sounds like you claim to know better than St Pope JPII on this subject, by the way his (JPII) mother was Orthodox so I’m almost certain that he was familiar with St Gregory Palamas otherwise why would he bother to make any comments about him.
Furthermore IMHO, it sounds like you know better than the Church on what is, or isn’t good for the Church, seeing that there hasn’t been any modern demands for these Churches sui iuris to remove him (St Gregory Palamas) from their calendar.
Now it sure seems to me that this is your feelings on the matter, if I’m wrong please clarify.
As for me, the RCC as of yet, has not removed St Gregory Palamas from the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, so I will continue to venerate him as such.
Last edited:
S
StAugustine
Guest
Many Orthodox are convinced it’s a dress-up party. My own issue is that what does it mean to be “Orthodox” as a Catholic? Will you repeat the anathemas against the Latins in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy every year? Will you condemn those who hold the filioque in the Synodikon of the Holy Spirit on the Monday after Pentecost? Will you share ROCOR’s 1983 anathema against ecumenism, or no?
So what then is authentic Byzantine Catholicism? There’s no clear answer. Unless it’s acceptable for one branch to anathematize another branch. But then…just be Orthodox.
Not simple.
So what then is authentic Byzantine Catholicism? There’s no clear answer. Unless it’s acceptable for one branch to anathematize another branch. But then…just be Orthodox.
Not simple.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
It is what Byzantine Catholics make it. It isn’t what Orthodox make it, it isn’t what Latin Church makes it. Rites and traditions of Eastern Churches are built by those who belong to them, not those who are outside them. There was a time where people thought Latin Church will define it and it led to Latinization, now there seems to be a movement of those who think Eastern Orthodoxy will define it and it leads to some sort of indifferentism/relativism and results into absolute controversy and spreads disunity.
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM says it best in its preamble, “The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers (1) and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.”
And . . .
“6. All members of the Eastern Rite should know and be convinced that they can and should always preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life, and that these may not be altered except to obtain for themselves an organic improvement. All these, then, must be observed by the members of the Eastern rites themselves. Besides, they should attain to an ever greater knowledge and a more exact use of them, and, if in their regard they have fallen short owing to contingencies of times and persons, they should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions.”
ZP
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Yes, but that refers to authentic Eastern Catholic Rites. Not necessarily everything that Orthodoxy has. As @StAugustine noted above, there are some things that are included in Orthodoxy (not necessarily infallibly nor are they binding) that are not compatible with Catholic Church.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
- Status