Is the Eastern Orthodox Church correct

[Kei]

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.

No, but it does present you with official documents of the Church.
The nature of discipline is that they are disciplinary. It is not an infallible statement about dogma or morals. Disciplines are not fixed but prudential matters, and as said, the discipline of an Ecumenical Council cannot bind another Ecumenical Council if the times call for a different discipline.

I think those who are not trained in it can easily misunderstand Councils. Granted, I am also just a layman. But this seems clear.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Pope Benedict XVI convened a commission to study the topic of Limbo ~ 10 years ago (+/-). The commission gave the report to Pope Benedict but he did not approve it nor did ++Levada (who was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF] at that time). The doctrine of Limbo is considered sentio de communis or proxima de fide but afaik not yet de Fide divina et Catholicam (of divine and Catholic Faith, i.e. infallible dogma).

So the doctrine of Limbo is in limbo.

 

[CathBoy1]

Perhaps, but it seems rather cut and dry when the consideration of the anathema was made in the first place to keep any editing, modifying, expanding, developing or anything else by anyone else in the future.
What was lacking in the creed in the first place that they felt it needed developing anyway?

There was nothing that needed combated other than the fact that (and the son) was added to the creed some years before, most likely in Spain, and it spread throughout the church in the West, and they decided to go on and add it via a council, therefore it wasn’t even originally added by a council, hence the origin of it, is where it should’ve been ended, a council should have struck it down instead of accepting it.

 

[Kei]

but it seems rather cut and dry when the consideration of the anathema was made in the first place to keep any editing, modifying, expanding, developing or anything else by anyone else in the future.

But was it? Did the Ecumenical Council truly mean to prevent future Ecumenical Councils from even thinking about it, or was it meant to keep any one bishop or priest or layman from messing with what was to be sorta universally used?
I don’t think any (approved) theological manuals will say an Ecumenical Council can bind a future Ecumenical Council in disciplinary matters.

What you think the Council Fathers should have done is a separate issue entirely.

But, I think you should definitely read the treatment given of the main issue that kicked everything here off here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[CathBoy1]

But, I think you should definitely read the treatment given of the main issue that kicked everything here off here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

I have read that, thanks for the link though

Again the problem with that is it does not change the original dogma (which is infallible), that those in the state of original sin cannot enter the beatific vision of God (heaven).
That’s why many popes and saints in the past have said that unbaptized/unborn babies go to hell or the borders of hell (limbo),etc. Because unbaptized/unborn babies carry the stain of original sin as the RCC sees it dogmatically defined, otherwise there would be no need to dogmatically define the immaculate conception, because we are talking about at the moment of conception when we define that, otherwise the only thing needed to be defined (in this regard) of the Virgin Mary was that she was sinless.

 

[Kei]

Again the problem with that is it does not change the original dogma (which is infallible), that those in the state of original sin cannot enter the beatific vision of God (heaven).
That’s why many popes and saints in the past have said that unbaptized/unborn babies go to hell or the borders of hell (limbo),etc. Because unbaptized/unborn babies carry the stain of original sin as the RCC sees it dogmatically defined, otherwise there would be no need to dogmatically define the immaculate conception, because we are talking about at the moment of conception when we define that, otherwise the only thing needed to be defined (in this regard) of the Virgin Mary was that she was sinless

Yes, but it doesn’t have to change anything (not that it could) of dogma, and offers several plausible solutions wherein unbaptized babies may still be cleansed of original sin and so go to Heaven. Remember, God isn’t constrained to the Sacraments.

 

[George720]

That doesn’t make sense either.

Great observation - All I can say is a little nonsense is sometimes helpful…

As well, so are explanations of reasons for observations…

So please forgive me for being so nonsensical…

Did you have a question perhaps?

geo

 

[George720]

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.

Your nickel is my treasury!

I do not know why there is such a delay - It may be the waiting period for the Mom to be re-Churched after having given birth… If a baby had a bad turn of health and was dying, I would imagine that Baptism would be accelerated, but I don’t know… Mostly, it is a matter of trusting God, I suppose… But this idea of saying that God sends unbaptized children to hell is just not an Orthodox teaching of which I am aware… Or miscarriages either, for that matter… God will take care of them in His great Love for mankind…

geo

 

[George720]

The link he provided… doesn’t override the fact that on this particular teaching
that if anyone should change it let them be anathema,

That ruling from the Ecumenical Council was made for a reason, and while I am not a student of the ruling, I am fairly confident that everyone and their brother had some choice tidbit of the Faith that they wanted to see included in the Creed… That would turn the Creed into the Catholic Online (and dare I mention searchable?) Catechism, which is the font of all possible Christian questions! OK - Maybe I overstated it!

Yet nevertheless, it was not to be altered on pain of an anathema and a Papal Authority did indeed change it. The fact that his Cardinals were demanding that the Orthodox give a full accounting with names of exactly WHY the Orthodox REMOVED it from the Creed does add a dash of seasoning to this brew! But they were so convinced of their Papal Authority to change the Creed that when they found out that we hadn’t removed it at all, but they had added it against the ruling in discussion, it made no difference to them, because they thought they did indeed HAVE the authority to do whatever they pleased with the Creed, because they ARE the bona fide successors to the Chair of Peter…

That is how authority often works…

So it was a dust-up…

But you are right - The Pope signed off on the ruling against changing the creed by so much as even one word on pain of anathema, and another Pope changed the Creed by adding that one word, and was not anathematized, and the question: “Which one was right?” would seem eminently reasonable…

And if looked at in terms of its fruit - eg The schisming of the Church - All bets are favoring the Pope who endorsed the Conciliar ruling… Adding that one word was a disaster…

geo

 

[CathBoy1]

or was it meant to keep any one bishop or priest or layman from messing with what was to be sorta universally used?

By the way this is exactly what happened in the case of the Filioque, starting in Spain and spreading throughout the RCC.
Point being that wherever it originated in Spain, that person(s) are anathema as per the Council Of Ephesus, Canon VII
Hence any later council should’ve only been convened to affirm what the previous council proclaimed, not reward those who defied the church’s current (at that point in time) teaching by officially adopting it into the creed.

 

[CathBoy1]

But you are right - The Pope signed off on the ruling against changing the creed by so much as even one word on pain of anathema, and another Pope changed the Creed by adding that one word, and was not anathematized, and the question: “Which one was right?” would seem eminently reasonable…

And if looked at in terms of its fruit - eg The schisming of the Church - All bets are favoring the Pope who endorsed the Conciliar ruling… Adding that one word was a disaster…

geo

I couldn’t agree more, tbh.

 

[Justin_Mary]

I mean they truly claim to be, and have pretty strong arguments. Sure Peter set up the See of Rome, but did he not also set up the See of Antioch first?

So why wouldn’t the Patriarch’s of Antioch be the successors of Peter?

Peter did not set up the church in Rome, much less the See.

But let’s think this through. When the capital of the Holy Roman Empire moved from Rome to Constantinople, what exactly did the Orthodox church want transferred to Constantinople? Was it to be first among equals, or was it more?

As an aside, why didn’t they change the name to the Holy Constantiopolitan Empire?

Did the Patriarch of Constantinople ever act as the leader of the universal church? Did anyone ever address him as the leader of the universal Church instituted by Christ? I ask because there have been times when the Bishop of Rome did not reside in Rome but he was still addressed & looked to as the Vicar of Christ. There have been times when there were two “Popes” & someone somewhere addressed them as the Vicar of Christ & they each acted as if they were.

Not that it would prove anything, I just wanted to know.

 

[CathBoy1]

There have been times when there were two “Popes”

There have been times when there were more than two popes, and how do we know that ultimately the correct or true pope prevailed? I guess it’s all a matter of faith.

But let’s think this through. When the capital of the Holy Roman Empire moved from Rome to Constantinople, what exactly did the Orthodox church want transferred to Constantinople? Was it to be first among equals, or was it more?

I wouldn’t know, as my knowledge of EO is limited as a RC, but I have personally never heard of what you suggest, to my knowledge the EO have never argued that the pope of Rome isn’t (wasn’t back then) considered first among equals.

 

[Vico]

without any pain of fire; and this taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one can thereby necessarily postulate a middle state or place involving neither guilt nor penalty between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as Pelagians have invented— false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools ."

Council of Orange II, (529 A.D.)

To us, according to the admonition and authority of the Apostolic See, it has seemed just and reasonable that we should set forth to be observed by all, and that we should sign with our own hands, a few chapters transmitted * to us by the Apostolic See, which were collected by the ancient fathers from the volumes of the Sacred Scripture especially in this cause, to teach those who think otherwise than they ought. . . .
Can. 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s transgression injured him alone and not his descendants, or declares that certainly death of the body only, which is the punishment of sin, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man into the whole human race, he will do an injustice to God, contradicting the Apostle who says: Through one man sin entered in the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed into all men, in whom all have sinned [Rom. 5:12; Cf. St. Augustine].

Denzinger - English translation, older numbering Denzinger - English translation, older numbering

 

[Maximus1]

You are not alone in your discomfort

 

[Maximus1]

Are you comfortable with God condemning unborn babies, or unbaptized babies? I think I first heard this in Catholic school about 50 years ago and I could never accept it. I think Saint Augustine got this wrong. Thomas Aquinas as well. The idea that it enhances the " heaven " experience knowing others are in hell is an eye roller for me. I think it is offensive to suggest about God.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The more I ponder this, I am more confused.
Honestly it’s headache inducing.

My story:

When I was in my senior year in college, our Catholic community center had The Fathers of the Church series. I started reading the Council of Chalcedon and said to myself: “That’s not right. I’ll fix it.” So I tried rewriting the infallible definition of the Council of Chalcedon. No matter what I tried it still didn’t seem right.

So I went back to my dorm room and got out my dad’s prayerbook which I took with me to college.
This is what I read:

You must keep away from irreligious and impious associations because impious men will succeed in rendering you unstable in your faith, or in causing you to lose it altogether. Be on your guard against doubts of faith. If such doubts present themselves to your mind, do not dwell upon them, but say to God: "O my Dear God, I believe this, although I cannot understand it. I accept it because Thou hast revealed it and the Catholic Church is teaching it."

Source: Schudlo, Rev. M., compiler. My Divine Friend. 1959, Yorkton, SK, Canada: Redeemer’s Voice Press, p. 91. (boldface added by me)

---

I thought I might as well try it. What have I got to lose? So I prayed the Act of Faith. And immediately - I mean IMMEDIATELY - God enlightened me as to the teaching of the Church and showed me where I was wrong.

Psalm 24: 7: The sins of my youth and my ignorances do not remember. According to thy mercy remember thou me: for thy goodness’ sake, O Lord."

2 Corinthians 12: 9: “… Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.”

 

[Justin_Mary]

We do not need to inherit sin if we inherit death - We will sin plenty enough all on our own in the fallenness of our lives under the rule of death upon which all have sinned…

Yes, we will. This is the effect of Original Sin

 

[Kei]

Hence any later council should’ve only been convened to affirm what the previous council proclaimed, not reward those who defied the church’s current (at that point in time) teaching by officially adopting it into the creed.

Do you have some citations that say Spaniards were using a modified version of the Creed prior to the filioque being approved? As opposed to, say, saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son apart from using it in the Creed (say, in theological works).
Preferably the citation would be a neutral (say, secular) rather than hostile (ie Eastern Orthodox) source.
Assuming for a moment that it is as you say, it’s not “rewarding” those who broke the discipline to change the discipline for a different time when it is viewed as prudent (say, to be against Arian heretics).
Of course, if those who broke discipline did so out of ignorance of said discipline, they can hardly be guilty of said sin.

 

[Justin_Mary]

As far as my questioning of why the patriarchs of Antioch shouldn’t be considered the successors of Peter was just my own musings and pointing out that Peter had set up other see’s, which seems non-relevant to RC’s & (somewhat?) relevant to EO.

That’s my two cents

Let me ask you this, in your opinion does the Patriarch of Antioch exhibit the kind of unity in the East as the first among equals should? From Antioch to Russia, to whatever, I don’t see the unity as should be displayed in the Vicar of Christ, the one Jesus himself prayed would strengthen his brothers.

But that’s me.

If it is God who says, “I will give you the keys.” Then regardless what Rome says, the Patriarch would wield those keys in a real, visible way. Right?