A
AlNg
Guest
I still have the same question. (3 posts up). Anyone can answer.
Last edited:
Is the Eastern Orthodox Church correct
- Thread starter CathBoy1
- Start date
- Status
K
Kei
Guest
From what I gather, if it were truly a de fide teaching, there is no way to change it into something else. It could develop or be clarified but not denied.
There is hope, but it doesn’t mean that this changes the teaching…for instance, a baby could be cleaned of original sin as an overflowing of Grace from God, who is not bound to the Sacraments. Then he or she would not be dying with original or actual sin.
I know of no doctrinal statement rising to the level of a de fide teaching that would deny what was quoted. There have been documents from the Vatican talking about hope for unbaptized. Of course, I am assuming that what was quoted really is a de fide teaching, but I am no theologian and have not yet checked.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
AND
From THEIR percpective?
Protestants make the same claim
For clarification, that quote was from you
May I suggest
It is a matter of faith AND history all properly referenced.
Re: the Creed and the filioque
Said simply, "proceeds from" the Father and the Son
Dual procession of the Holy Spirit is correct, dual source is heretical.
Said another way
Dual procession ≠ dual source
As JPII explains
Greek vs Latin expression of proceeds Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit | EWTN
As in
"Deum de Deo, Lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero" = God from God, Light from Light, true God of true God.
Did Peter leave himself? OR did the others leave Peter?
Re: Schism , definition
From the CCC
2089 schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
Last edited:
What you say here though really just dodges the point that I brought up, an ecumenical council (Council of Ephesus) approved by the pope of Rome (infallibly?) is totally ignored (Canon VII) by a later pope with the insertion of the Filioque (and the son), are you claiming that adding the Filioque does not change the creed? Cause it sure seems like it does.
If you wish to dance around the point that’s fine but either one pope was infallibly correct or the other pope was infallibly correct not both can be so when they contradict each other.
K
Kei
Guest
I HIGHLY reccomend reading the document on hope for unbaptized infants to see its treatment of the question.
@CathBoy1
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
@CathBoy1
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
S
steve-b
Guest
Keep in mind, there are 21 ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church.steve-b:
What you say here though really just dodges the point that I brought up, an ecumenical council (Council of Ephesus) approved by the pope of Rome (infallibly?) is totally ignored (Canon VII) by a later pope with the insertion of the Filioque (and the son), are you claiming that adding the Filioque does not change the creed? Cause it sure seems like it does.
If you wish to dance around the point that’s fine but either one pope was infallibly correct or the other pope was infallibly correct not both can be so when they contradict each other.
The Orthodox not being Catholic nor the Catholic Church, only accept 7 councils
And
Consider Was the Addition of "Filioque" an Illicit Alteration of the Nicene Creed? | Catholic Answers
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
SSPX refuses to submit to the Roman Pontiff and still they are not in schism.
S
steve-b
Guest
Pope Benedict XVI made a change Canon Law and the SSPX - Canon Law Made EasyCanon Law Made Easysteve-b:
SSPX refuses to submit to the Roman Pontiff and still they are not in schism.
I’m not arguing that there’s either 7 or 21 ecumenical council‘s, what I’m arguing is that an infallible teaching cannot be changed otherwise it wouldn’t be infallible, yet here we have a case where it seemingly was.
I don’t wish to argue and as I said before this argument can go on until we’re both blue in the face.
Point being you haven’t given a straight up answer to the point brought up.
And trust me I’ve been looking for the answer to this for years, there is no straight up answer.
2 Popes infallibly contradict each other how do you answer that?
Everything that you have brought up, every point about it and everything that I’ve ever read about it only tries to reconcile the fact that the Filioque is in the creed and that perhaps, maybe, that this is what was always believed (even though we had to change creed to state that it is what we always believed), at the end of the day the fact remains, neither you, nor I, nor anybody else can reconcile the fact the that these 2 Popes made infallible declarations that contradict each other.
I don’t wish to argue and as I said before this argument can go on until we’re both blue in the face.
Point being you haven’t given a straight up answer to the point brought up.
And trust me I’ve been looking for the answer to this for years, there is no straight up answer.
2 Popes infallibly contradict each other how do you answer that?
Everything that you have brought up, every point about it and everything that I’ve ever read about it only tries to reconcile the fact that the Filioque is in the creed and that perhaps, maybe, that this is what was always believed (even though we had to change creed to state that it is what we always believed), at the end of the day the fact remains, neither you, nor I, nor anybody else can reconcile the fact the that these 2 Popes made infallible declarations that contradict each other.
S
steve-b
Guest
From the looks of it, you didn’t open the link I provided at this moment in time.
Last edited:
F
Famulus
Guest
This is probably the best answer to his question.
S
steve-b
Guest
Re: children, who die and no baptism, … Best we can do, is hope for Jesus to save them.
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism , the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
That doesn’t make sense either.
Oh I did open the link to the argument that you provided, it doesn’t seem to hold seeing as the Council Of Ephesus was held after the Council Of Constantinople I, Thereby it would seem that Ephesus confirms Constantinople I rather than condemning it.
As I’ve said before there’s just no satisfactory answer to this question.
Truth be told I believe the truth of the church lies somewhere between East and West, yet here we are.
As I’ve said before there’s just no satisfactory answer to this question.
Truth be told I believe the truth of the church lies somewhere between East and West, yet here we are.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I think that there have been a few changes in teachings. I am not sure if they were “infallible” or not. I read somewhere that there are few theologians who suggest that the concept of infallibility be reconsidered.
K
Kei
Guest
I think you missed the main thrust of the argument, which was that an Ecumenical Council can modify a former Ecumencial Council’s disciplinary edicts.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
I’m Ukrainian Greek Catholic and I admit that’s one thing I do not like - delaying Baptism for 40 days. I was baptized 14+ days after I was born. St. Padre Pio was baptized the day he was born, and he later said that it was one of the greatest (or the greatest - don’t remember exactly) grace(s) that God gave him.
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori said that a baby should be baptized within 8 days. In the OT, a boy had to be circumcised on the eighth day or be cut off from the Hebrew people. Baptism is to the NT what circumcision was to the OT, since it is the gateway to the other sacraments. An unbaptized person cannot be chrismated, nor receive the Eucharist etc.
My nieces are RC but both of them were baptized almost 2-3 months after they were born.
I was a nervous wreck until they were baptized. I think the RCC should go back to their traditional practice of baptism as soon as possible after birth.I think that all babies should be baptized immediately or as soon as possible after birth. No baby should be delayed in having the Divine Life of God imparted to them in Baptism.
That’s my .05 for now.
But did I?
The link he provided is not any kind of an official document from the church first off, furthermore it doesn’t override the fact that on this particular teaching that if anyone should change it let them be anathema, hence the dilemma that statement doesn’t allow for interpretation or modification or anything else whatsoever.
K
Kei
Guest
Truly infallible teaching cannot change as in they cannot be later denied, but they can change in the sense that they develop: a calf can become a cow, but a calf cannot become a fish. They can be clarified. However, disciplines can change in such a way: they are not important teaching but rather tell us how to act at least for a certain time, and what is prudent for one time is not prudent at another.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
St. Augustine was considered a “pillar of Orthodoxy”? That’s news to me. Everything EO that I’ve seen almost anathematize him and his teaching.
That’s news to me. Everything EO that I’ve seen almost anathematize him and his teaching.- Status