If Rome is wrong, where do you go?

[Deconi]

Rome does NOT mean the Catholic Church, and the OP does NOT imply it is. I should know, I’m the OP. There’s a reason I put it in Non-Catholic Religion (sic) and not Apologetics.

In matters Catholic, that is, where external enquiry seeks the opinion of The Catholic Church, Rome is the destination of those enquiries; not Eastern Orthodox; Russian Orhodox etc. Perhaps in local matters, the Eastern are taken as the view of Catholicism from time to time, but in ‘universal matters,’ Rome’s view is sought.

“Rome” means The Catholic Church, and your denial is dishonest since your mention of the Latins and their ‘musings’ of the same question clearly betray your meaning

One does not need to be skilled in Apologetics to deduce and analyse.

No, we can and do get by without thinking of Rome. Don’t think that our conversations with you (particularly in the West), are those we have amongst ourselves (particularly in the East).

Your compatriot, Hesychios (Michael) betrays you.
“At Belgrade and Ravenna this has been discussed, why not here?” Clearly, matters are discussed East and West, and by East and West.

As for getting by without thinking of Rome, your personal view may not be shared by the East. With good reason: ‘We’ CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT !

From what I have learned from Scriptures, Sts Paul & John in particular, reinforced by the Early Fathers of Catholicism,(Tradition) which we share, it appears that Catholics hold a special place on Judgement Day and are to receive their reward for ‘being Catholics’ but will SUFFER the weight of Judgement also where they dissent. This makes sense since we cannot rely on Invincible Ignorance for we KNOW Christ and His Truth. That’s an opinion though.

do you mean progression of doctrine? that’s your creation, not ours.

Since all Catholic doctrines have a basis from Scriptures and Tradition, our disagreement about them clearly sits in our laps to study and seek the understanding required. So, where you may disagree, you need the understanding. Where it falls upon me, I must do likewise.

Contraception issues: it has been pointed out the near total lack of patristrics in HV, and the state of the Latins in following it. I won’t go on a tangent on this.

As for hypocrisy that pulses through the annulment scheme…

I’ll keep my confusion about your point in check then, until / unless you clarify.

Go down the list of issues at the schism: the Orthodox stand on the side of the Fathers on them (addition of the filioque, banning married priests, etc.). Each of Rome’s positions were/are innovations. sorry, you wandered off the reservation.

This seems to mirror the Protestant argument method. You ‘take your own torch’ and then point it hither and there, at this point and that issue, but never illuminate the fork in the road where the departure began.

Disagreements existed; yes. Disagreements also occurred in Jerusalem at the fisrt council. But from that council to the schism, ONE Papal lineage reigned over all Christianity. After the schism, there is still One Pope continuing, but now also a Collection of Bishops exists and claim to possess the lineage.

Examination of Scriptures and Tradition is ‘forced’ onto Christianity to decide both claims, yet everyone can see where the difference is!

You cite St.Mathew and St. James as examples somewhere above about not setting up their own chairs. How you fail to see ‘yourselves and us’ in your analogy puzzles me! By their apt example, they support Scriptures AND Tradition, UNTIL the schism.

We know the differene between the Church’s infallibility and the hierarchy and primacy. which is why we are still in the Catholic Church (and the OP means Orthodox Catholic).

‘You’ are still Catholic because even the bishops cannot deny Peter as the Cephas upon which The Church was built. The Bishops are pobably also mindful, perhaps, that THE KEYS OF HEAVEN were given to him alone, signifying Petrine Supremacy in matters of Christian faith.

It is interesting also that you cite above that some material you’ve examined suggests that The Church or Pope would have done things differently if it weren’t for ‘Eastern voices’ is profound! Facts that have occurred, occurred. Inserting “maybes” and “probabilities” only serves confusion. Let’s just stick to taking Our Lord at His word that He will guide His Church until the end, and stick to FACTUAL occurrences.

Anytime you find The Pope seeking the council of the Eastern collection of bishops to DECIDE an issue pertaining to matters for THE ENTIRE FAITH, you let me know. That is not retroric or generic comment but simply I am unaware of any.

 

[abcd]

I wasn’t denying this part of your claim. I already knew that the Pope did this. And of course I know what the Church teaches about Purgatory. I totally agree with it too.

You still didn’t back up the other false claims. Like, all people go to heaven claim. or Muslims go to heaven claim. or anything like that.

Here is the quote and documentation about Muslims going to heaven as declared by the Catholic church. To read the complete article go to this link.-amnation.com/vfr/archives/006437.html

As far as purgatory if there was one, the pope does not have the power of God to shorten your time for going to Lourds or giving indulgences–shades of Tetzel

It comes from the Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council:

New Vatican secretary of state Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said the pope’s position on Islam was in line with Vatican teaching which says the Church “regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God.” Where does this come from?
It comes from the Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council:

1. About the Moslems The Church regards Moslems with esteem: they adore the one God, living and enduring, the all-powerful Creator of heaven and earth who has spoken to people; they strive to obey wholeheartedly His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham did, to whose faith they happily link their own.

 

[dessert]

I knew when I converted to Catholicism that I could never accept Protestant Christianity–so as far as I am concerned, if Rome is wrong then all of Christianity is wrong. Where would I go? I have no idea. But I know where I would not go.

So do I. I would not want to go to an imitation Christianity that is watered down, I would want the real deal so that is why I am staying with Rome.

 

[moondweller]

Here is the quote and documentation about Muslims going to heaven as declared by the Catholic church. To read the complete article go to this link.-amnation.com/vfr/archives/006437.html

Humm… Very interesting link. Looks like the only safe place to go to is back to the Scriptures. God’s Word is truth.

 

[abcd]

Humm… Very interesting link. Looks like the only safe place to go to is back to the Scriptures. God’s Word is truth.

Amen Brother MD. Glad to hear you say that.
Bill

 

[jam070406]

I don’t think so. He didn’t say “I think you should leave XYZ church” or “this is the reason you should leave XYZ church” or “come to my church”.

A Protestant might have easily have said “you could go to Lutherans, or Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.” That’s not proselytizing. Plus, you would have all kinds of opportunities to bash them.

He made a point. This is your chance to refute his statement with a counter.

The topic seems to be about the unique claims of Rome, and I think that it is a topic worthy of discussion, don’t you? In the east all bishops are considered successors of Peter in the way western Christians think of the bishop of Rome uniquely. That happens to be a fact.

At Belgrade and Ravenna this has been discussed, why not here?

Pope John Paul II (blessed memory!) has asked that we help redefine the Petrine ministry. There is a lot of ground to cover here.

Anyway, that’s how I see it.
*
Michael*

Oooh, I think so.
That’s a nice fuzzy sediment you presented Michael but I know better. I’ve been viewing Isa’s posts for months.
The topic may as well have been “Rome is wrong, where will you go?” (Isa has the answer…Orthodoxy!)
The core of the topic has been dicussed ad nausea Michael. To which Isa posted lengthy lengthy lenghty rebuttals, time and time again. He knows where the RCC stands. He knows where he stands. So again I ask, what’s the point?

Isa is not open to Catholic views. Yes, he made a point. Is he interested or open to alternate views? NO! He only wishes to prove to others HOW the RCC is wrong. When people refute his points it’s only fuel to bring out more quotes, etc. etc. trying to discredit the RCC.

I find it interesting that you said if a Protestant answered we’d have oppurtunity to bash them. To me, this said alot about the posting of this thread.
Bash the Catholic Church, drag out Antipopes, dark periods of the Church, bizarre/unique points in histrory etc. etc. to do so, THEN, in a subtle way, offer an alternative to this obviously (to him) erroneous Roman religion. (his religion)

Sorry, my friend, that is proselytizing. Just not as black as white as you portrayed in your first paragraph.

That’s how I see it.

 

[abcd]

As OP, I have to concur.

As I stated already, I didn’t make up the title. I have seen the question asked by Latins in several posts, and then other Latins picking up the challenge and reiterating it as if we had no answer.

To be complete, what the Latins stated was to the effect “If Rome is right, you know where to go. But if Rome is wrong, where do you go?”

I just posted to show that we Orthodox know where we are going.

If Rome is wrong where do you go? Why you go to Jesus and then you find a Bible believing fellowship. The Pope while in South America a year or two ago was really concerned about the multitues of Latins leaving the Catholic church. I forgot what his exact words were that he spoke when he came back but he in other words told the Bishops or whoever to get on the ball and get it stopped.:tsktsk:

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Optatus was not refuting St. Cyprian, but Parmenian. As far as your claim that he asked for support against Rome, please provide proof.

This has oft been posted. I haven’t the time but:

newadvent.org/cathen/06080b.htm

 

[flyersfan1088]

This has oft been posted. I haven’t the time but:

newadvent.org/cathen/06080b.htm

I have no idea what you wanted me to get out of all of that, but it still does nothing to dispel the original quote from Optatus. Here’s what did jump off the page though

“We thus learn the claims of the pope to impose on the whole Church by his authority as successor of Peter, a custom derived by the Roman Church from Apostolic tradition.”

This on a page dedicated to a man who died in 269A.D.
Don’t EO claim universal jurisdiction was invented by Rome just before the Schism?

You still have failed to show why the quote does not apply.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

In matters Catholic, that is, where external enquiry seeks the opinion of The Catholic Church, Rome is the destination of those enquiries; not Eastern Orthodox; Russian Orhodox etc. Perhaps in local matters, the Eastern are taken as the view of Catholicism from time to time, but in ‘universal matters,’ Rome’s view is sought.

Rome’s view has not been sought, exept by her choir.

The Orthodox have been quite consistent on this. We continue to say the original Creed, including: One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church. It doesn’t say Roman, and we don’t mean Rome when we say it.

“Rome” means The Catholic Church, and your denial is dishonest since your mention of the Latins and their ‘musings’ of the same question clearly betray your meaning

Au contraire, my thoughts are both honest and transparent. That they are not to your liking doesn’t make them dishonest.

Btw, this problem doesn’t exist in Arabic and the Slavic languages, and others that have one word for Catholic/Latin, and another for Catholic/Universal.

One does not need to be skilled in Apologetics to deduce and analyse.

Who claimed you needed to be skilled in Apologetics? Just thoughtful.

Your compatriot, Hesychios (Michael) betrays you.
“At Belgrade and Ravenna this has been discussed, why not here?” Clearly, matters are discussed East and West, and by East and West.

Betrays me how? I didn’t deny we are speaking with you (what are we doing now?), in which case we would have to speak about your claims. We, however, are quite clear that that is not an in home discussion. Hence the apoplexy about our refusal to speak officially about the “validity” of your sacraments. It doesn’t concern us.

As for getting by without thinking of Rome, your personal view may not be shared by the East. With good reason: ‘We’ CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT !

You’re right.

From what I have learned from Scriptures, Sts Paul & John in particular, reinforced by the Early Fathers of Catholicism,(Tradition) which we share, it appears that Catholics hold a special place on Judgement Day and are to receive their reward for ‘being Catholics’ but will SUFFER the weight of Judgement also where they dissent. This makes sense since we cannot rely on Invincible Ignorance for we KNOW Christ and His Truth. That’s an opinion though.

Invincible Ignorance. Reminds me of “Ignorance is Strenght.”

They will also suffer where they obey men rather than God.

Since all Catholic doctrines have a basis from Scriptures and Tradition, our disagreement about them clearly sits in our laps to study and seek the understanding required. So, where you may disagree, you need the understanding. Where it falls upon me, I must do likewise.

I’ll keep my confusion about your point in check then, until / unless you clarify.

You made a claim. In brief, reality doesn’t match it, even with allowance for disobedience and “invincible ignorance.”

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This seems to mirror the Protestant argument method. You ‘take your own torch’ and then point it hither and there, at this point and that issue, but never illuminate the fork in the road where the departure began.

I’ve posted a couple: Pope Victor’s highhandness marks a definite start (and I have posted that he had intimate links to the emperor, which I think contributed to his imperial manner). Pope Nicholas’ adventure in Bulgaria, exposing what was going on in Rome (and the subsequent suppression of the Eastern missionaries in Moravia, who returned East to Bulgaria with warnings). (IMHO, in some sense the “Photian schism” was anti-climatic). The German conquest of the Romans in the West, and the events of Henry’s coranation (first use of the filioque in Roman liturgy) and 1054, and then the seal of 1204.

Now and every fork of the road, you found your way back. But 1204 pretty much burned the bridge down. Do those flames illuminate when the departure began?

Disagreements existed; yes. Disagreements also occurred in Jerusalem at the fisrt council. But from that council to the schism, ONE Papal lineage reigned over all Christianity. After the schism, there is still One Pope continuing, but now also a Collection of Bishops exists and claim to possess the lineage.

At that council, the Apostle whom you claim as your first pope did not preside: St. James the Brother of God did. The tome of the council records his judgement. Sylvester did nothing at Nicea, Damasus was absent from Constantinople I, Pope Cyril of Alexandria led Ephesus (yes, I know the claim is that he only acted as Rome’s legate, but he had acted with his uncle Pope Theophilos in defiance of Rome in deposing another Archbishop of Constantinople, so he was quite capable on his own. And the Council didn’t seem to put him on a lower footing than Rome, proclaiming both “a new Paul” NOTE: not a new “Peter.” Leo was big at Chalcedon (after the fathers examined his tome and compared it to previous Councils), but the council seated Dioscorus over Leo’s express orders, and ignored his protest over canon 28. When Pope Vigilius refused to have anything to do with the Fifth Council, it went on without him. The Sixth anathematized Pope Honorius. The Pope had very little to do with the Seventh, while the semi-iconoclast council of Frankfurt was held in his patriarchate. Constantinople IV refused to be the rubber stamp that Nicholas wanted (he instructed it to merely ratify his decision), and Pope John approved the final form, which restored St. Photius.

Examination of Scriptures and Tradition is ‘forced’ onto Christianity to decide both claims, yet everyone can see where the difference is!

You cite St.Mathew and St. James as examples somewhere above about not setting up their own chairs. How you fail to see ‘yourselves and us’ in your analogy puzzles me! By their apt example, they support Scriptures AND Tradition, UNTIL the schism.

The Council of Jerusalem met in the name of the “Apostles (bishops), elders (priests) and brethren (Faithful).” No mention of Cephas, or a pope. Such was the governance of the Church. Such it is now. As our Lord said, “the gentiles have those who rule over them,” but he did not found a monarchy. James and John asked who would be first. Someone is asking the same question now.

‘You’ are still Catholic because even the bishops cannot deny Peter as the Cephas upon which The Church was built. The Bishops are pobably also mindful, perhaps, that THE KEYS OF HEAVEN were given to him alone, signifying Petrine Supremacy in matters of Christian faith.

Then we should canonize Honorius instead of anathematizing him.

It is interesting also that you cite above that some material you’ve examined suggests that The Church or Pope would have done things differently if it weren’t for ‘Eastern voices’ is profound! Facts that have occurred, occurred. Inserting “maybes” and “probabilities” only serves confusion. Let’s just stick to taking Our Lord at His word that He will guide His Church until the end, and stick to FACTUAL occurrences.

I am afraid I am not getting the first half of this paragraph.

I have stated facts.

Anytime you find The Pope seeking the council of the Eastern collection of bishops to DECIDE an issue pertaining to matters for THE ENTIRE FAITH, you let me know. That is not retroric or generic comment but simply I am unaware of any.

Of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, can you show me which ones the Pope of Rome called?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So do I. I would not want to go to an imitation Christianity that is watered down, I would want the real deal so that is why I am staying with Rome.

Do you take NO, or TLM?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Oooh, I think so.
That’s a nice fuzzy sediment you presented Michael but I know better. I’ve been viewing Isa’s posts for months.
The topic may as well have been “Rome is wrong, where will you go?” (Isa has the answer…Orthodoxy!)
The core of the topic has been dicussed ad nausea Michael. To which Isa posted lengthy lengthy lenghty rebuttals, time and time again. He knows where the RCC stands. He knows where he stands. So again I ask, what’s the point?

Isa is not open to Catholic views. Yes, he made a point. Is he interested or open to alternate views? NO! He only wishes to prove to others HOW the RCC is wrong. When people refute his points it’s only fuel to bring out more quotes, etc. etc. trying to discredit the RCC.

I find it interesting that you said if a Protestant answered we’d have oppurtunity to bash them. To me, this said alot about the posting of this thread.
Bash the Catholic Church, drag out Antipopes, dark periods of the Church, bizarre/unique points in histrory etc. etc. to do so, THEN, in a subtle way, offer an alternative to this obviously (to him) erroneous Roman religion. (his religion)

Sorry, my friend, that is proselytizing. Just not as black as white as you portrayed in your first paragraph.

That’s how I see it.

As I’ve posted, I saw the title question on several posts, ignored it, only to see that as an admission that we don’t have an answer. As the OP shows, we have an answer.

I’d be less than honest if I didn’t reply. I’m not in the Latin choir, so I don’t sing the proof texts. I am simply admitting that they are off key.

By all means, if you think, as Unam Sanctam says, that it is absolutely necessarily for salvation to be subject to the pope of Rome, then Rome is where you belong. But that is not the only answer (nor would I say the correct answer) to Unam Sanctum.

And I will underline again, the title was taken from LATIN posters. I’m sorry, don’t ask questions you don’t want answered.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If Rome is wrong where do you go? Why you go to Jesus and then you find a Bible believing fellowship. The Pope while in South America a year or two ago was really concerned about the multitues of Latins leaving the Catholic church. I forgot what his exact words were that he spoke when he came back but he in other words told the Bishops or whoever to get on the ball and get it stopped.:tsktsk:

Only one problem with this.

The Bible doesn’t show Christ writing the Bible.

It does show Him founding the Church.

The manual is basically useless unless you have the car.

 

[LilyM]

Of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, can you show me which ones the Pope of Rome called?

Talk about an irrelevancy. He called exactly the same number of 'em as the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople et al called - which is precisely none in all cases.

Does that mean the Emperors and Empresses who DID call them are the true Church leaders? Maybe those who say the Church was begun by Constantine (who convened the first of the Seven Councils) are right after all!

 

[justinthemartyr]

true, it does not take a pope to call any of the councils. it is not all about the pope, it is all about Jesus working through the entire magisterium of His church to give the world the Truth of God, infallibly.

 

[dessert]

Do you take NO, or TLM?

Our NO is starting to adopt some Latin even a little because we have to obey the bishop.

Pope Benedict xvi is going to visit the USA next year so what if he says to the bishops all must adopt a little latin, what are you Eastern Catholics going to do? They are making us they can make you too.

We have gotten the word and I think it will happen to all, Coptic all the ones that were listed, don’t shut your ears and eyes to this because I believe it is happening now.

They took away our ignatious press hymn books, now ignatious is a good old Catholic press, and we aren’t getting a new one yet but I know it will have Latin in it.

I think , but of course it is a personal idea or speculation but we are getting the vibes pretty sure, you will have to mix Latin in with your Greek, and maybe even show proof such as purchased texts.

We were not asked if this is what we want but expected to honor our bishop and priest.

 

[abcd]

Only one problem with this.

The Bible doesn’t show Christ writing the Bible.

It does show Him founding the Church.

The manual is basically useless unless you have the car.

What is wrong with your reply in my opinion is that the Orthodox and the Catholic do not understand what the “church” is/

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Talk about an irrelevancy. He called exactly the same number of 'em as the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople et al called - which is precisely none in all cases.

Does that mean the Emperors and Empresses who DID call them are the true Church leaders? Maybe those who say the Church was begun by Constantine (who convened the first of the Seven Councils) are right after all!

When, in 784, the imperial secretary Patriarch Tarasius was appointed successor to the Patriarch Paul IV, he accepted on the condition that the images should be restored and intercommunion reestablished (none of the patriarchs had accepted the Latrocinium of the Iconoclasts). The Council called was Nicea II, and Pope Adrian was invited, who sent legates.

The Emperor Constantine IV abadonded Monotheletism as the state creed, and called a local council, with no intention that it would be ecumenical. From the Sacras it appears that he had summoned all the Metropolitans and bishops of the jurisdiction of Constantinople, and had also informed the Patriarch of Antioch that he might send Metropolitans and bishops. A long time before he had written to Pope Agatho on the subject. When the synod assembled however, it assumed at its first session the title “Ecumenical.” All five patriarchs were represented, Alexandria and Jerusalem having sent deputies although they were at the time in the hands of the Muslims. So, the five patriarchs in concert (including Rome) convened the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

The weakness and subserviency of Mennas (the sole EP, or for that matter, Eastern Patriarch, ever confirmed by a Pope of Rome (i.e. Agapetus), and twice excommunicated by Rome) were the immediate cause of all the violence and confusion over the Three Chapters. When EP Eutychius succeeded him, he presented his professor of faith to Vigilius and, in union with other Eastern bishops, urged the calling of a general council under the presidency of the pope. When Vigilius refused, Eutychius went ahead and held the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

During a local synod in Constantinople, Eutyches was denounced as a heretic by the bishop of Dorylaeum, Eusebius, with the demand that he be removed from his office. The then archbishop, Flavian of Constantinople, did not wish to consider the matter as a result of the great prestige that Eutyches enjoyed (second only to his own) but finally relented, and so Eutyches was condemned as a heretic by the synod. However, the emperor Theodosius II and the Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, did not accept the decision of the synod because Eutyches had repented and confessed his orthodoxy. Dioscorus held his own synod reinstating Eutyches, and the emperor called a council to be held in Ephesus. The Robber Council ensued, with the emperor supporting and exiling bishops by Pope Dioscorors’ specifications. With the new emperor, those bishops exiled for adhering to EP Flavian and Pope Leo Rome regrouped at Chalcedon, to reinstate the decree of the council that condemned Eutyches (btw, Dioscoros and the Non-Chalcedonians would later anathematize Eutyches as well).

Pope Cyril, who had previously deposed another EP (John Chrysostom) at the synod of the oak, agitated for Nestorius’ deposition, which occured at Ephesus, which was run according to Cyril’s specifications.

Constantinople I was called by Theodosius, who also made it’s Creed the State Creed. His biggest contribution, however, was letting the Orthodox Catholic bishops return from exile.

Nicea I was called by Constantine.

So, maybe I should reword: which of the Ecumenical Councils were called like Vatican I or II were called, by order of the pope of Rome. None.

 

[flyersfan1088]

What is wrong with your reply in my opinion is that the Orthodox and the Catholic do not understand what the “church” is/

Yes we do. It’s a visible institution, not an invisible body of believers.