O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I have no knowledge about such incidents. Could you please provide any source I can use to learn about that?
Last edited:
Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?
- Status
A
AlNg
Guest
Henry charles Lea:
A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages in Three volumes.
His other work A History of the Inquisition of Spain (4 volumes) would not have that information since it only talks about the Spanish Inquisition.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Thank you very much, I will look into it.
A
AlNg
Guest
It was the Roman Inquisition, not the Spanish Inquisition.
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
Let the record indicate that you now have brownie points in my book for using a reference to Europa Universalis in this dialogue. 
:+1:t2:
:+1:t2:
T
threechildren
Guest
Yes, it is quite the other way around. It is not a grudge being held by the Orthodox as some may believe. It is from all the changes including heresy dating far back. This is why the break had to come for the Orthodox who want to maintain Tradition as handed down by Jesus and the Apostles. With the way the RC Church is behaving today, it will distant the Orthodox Church even more. The RC Church has many Bishops doing their own thing in terms of decisions whereas they should work collectively to agree and come to the same decision which will create more harmony for the faithful and all will be doing the same. There is far too much confusion and partiality which Jesus himself was aware of - partiality and lip-service. It seems to be the fruits of the very distant past not just Vat 11.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
There was this argument already… defining doctrine hardly changes it. It would be like saying Council of Nicea abandoned faith of Apostles since before it, Arians had no problems with the Church… (Exaggerated to prove a point). Break came for Orthodox from political reasons at the time, faith had little to do with Schism in it’s initial stages.
Agreed. This should be combatted. In Orthodoxy this is also a problem but because leadership is not concerned with popular consensus and centralisation isn’t that high, it tends to get solved. However, Orthodoxy tends to get even Patriarchs with opposite views on sacraments outside Church, validity of Anglicans, Baptism and etc… simply speaking there is no sign of disunity with official teaching because it is vague or non-existent in Orthodoxy. Catholicism has it clearly defined but people still sometimes rebel.
I don’t think this was case pre-V2. Incidents were usually solved. However, some in high positions tend to be focused on popularity and decentralisation (good goal, bad road) and hence crises go unsolved. Though usually important ones do get solved and thanks to Catholic teaching being defined, faithful can easily spot those mistakes of clergy and realize the truth. Vatican II as a council has nothing to do with that - it’s misinterpretation does. Perhaps some vague interpretations are problematic… but that is something even more present in Orthodoxy.
T
threechildren
Guest
It seems when the politics get into it, there is more trouble just as there is today. Faith and politics don’t mix well especially when there is such a contrast and going against the faith too much. I forget who it was exactly, but I think a Roman Emperor walked into the Divine Liturgy (as it was going on) of the Greeks (dating far back) and slammed down the paperwork on the altar, that the Romans were tossing the Greeks out - into schism - however the Greeks then returned the same paperwork. There is always a build up to these events and changes or battles so we can’t really just take it at face value.
Last edited:
T
threechildren
Guest
I have read that councils such as Vat 11 are supposed to be for eliminating heresies not just making (modern) changes.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Where have you read that? Vatican II was supposed to be clarifying and pastoral council, not necessarily infallible by itself (but by virtue of past declarations it holds to). It is very unique Ecumenical Council, but Ecumenical nevertheless.
Right. That is why Caesaropapism was fought against by the Church. However, Church is communion of all faithful (laity and clergy alike). Of course those faithful live in states and participate in it’s control and as such impact government. Church impacts government and that should be true, as those who rule are part of the Church. However, who guides and rules the Church is Holy Spirit and he is not part of any nation, and hence government and politics should never control the Church nor hinder Her service.
It was a Papal Legate. Situation was somewhat complicated; Greek Patriarch went on and said Latin Eucharist is illegitimate. His chaplain then stepped on Latin Eucharist and Pope sent his legates to investigate that. However, Patriarch did not receive legates and just ignored them. After Pope died, Legate got recalled (and very angry) and as such placed excommunication degree on the altar during Liturgy, and then left to Rome. Papal Legate’s authority fades when Pope dies and as such, this act was illegitimate and wrong. Roman Emperor actually wanted to have Patriarch recalled and submit to Rome, but since this Patriarch was very skilled at court diplomacy, he prevented that.
Fast forward some years later and this Patriarch deposes Emperors, wears Emperor-only shoes, and then some fast-forwarding later he dies exiled by Byzantine Empire for trying to manipulate the court and playing Emperor-maker. History shows him as power-hungry man. History also shows Papal Legate as man of short temper, very easy to get irritated. However, Byzantines did not actually even know they broke communion with Pope years later. In-fact, when asked by Latins visiting Constantinople why is Pope not on their diptychs, they had to check into their archives to remember why are they not in communion with the Pope.
Last edited:
M
Mary888
Guest
What was their sins at Ferrara-Florence (15th century) then? If the RC fell out of favor with the Constantinople just at Vatican II? The Schism really isn’t about Vatican II. More even, at Vatican II the RC stopped calling the Eastern Orthodox schismatics, fact that isn’t pleasing to many Catholics on the traditional side who also oppose Vatican II.
So what exactly is Vatican II against the Orthodox Church?
My bet it is that EO prudence is less about the Vatican but about the Patriarch of Constantinople, dubbed by Pope Francis who seems to almost worship him, and who is deciding on his own. But this is Eastern Orthodoxy, we cannot say the Patriarch of Constantinople is wrong without committing suicide, right? Or can we? Or maybe some autocephalous Patriarchates like the Russian one, was seeking support from the Vatican against Constantinople and hasn’t found it. Because during the Schism the dialectics work like a robot. If the Schism ends then Rome and Constantinople can no longer be played against each other…
T
threechildren
Guest
I read that on another Catholic forum quite some time ago - that this was the purpose of calling for a Council. (to eliminate heresies and not make (modern) changes.) I never looked into it further actually.
Last edited:
T
threechildren
Guest
In speaking with Orthodox friends, I heard an interesting comment - when there are upheavals in the Orthodox Church, they immediately look back to the early Fathers and Saints whereas the RC Church makes changes to accommodate and compromise (at times to the most ridiculous ends and means) to move forward - and unfortunately, a lot gets lost in the transition. This is difficult to ignore when we see what is going on today.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
That is simply misleading. Catholic Councils are always based upon Church Fathers and Saints. Early or sometimes not as Early… but there is virtually no Ecumenical Council using no quotations of it’s preceding Councils nor Church Fathers (and Saints).
Usually that is the case, but that is not only purpose of council. Vatican 2 is notable exception.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I don’t think so, at least when it comes to the question of indissolubility of marriage. Before Vatican II, marriage annulments were granted very sparingly for very serious reasons, such as a previous and undisclosed marriage. However, after Vatican II, changes were made in the annulment process to accommodate and compromise and while not technically allowing Sacramental divorce, it really amounts to something very similar. Two people are married in the church, then after 15 years of marriage and several children, one of the spouses is unfaithful to the marriage and so an annulment is applied for on grounds that would not have been accepted before Vatican II. As Cardinal Kasper has said, many marriage annulments are really Catholic divorces in a dishonest way.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
What exactly did Vatican II change about marriage dogmatically? While usage of annulments was increased, theology behind them is unchanged. It is sad annulments are abused but that is abuse resulting from human weakness not from failure of Holy Spirit to preserve Church Council from error.
What is teaching concerning indissolubility of marriage in Orthodoxy? Did Early Fathers consider divorce as dissolution of marriage?
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Dogmatically nothing has changed but operationally there is a huge difference as noted by Cardinal kasper.
G
George720
Guest
Three strikes and you’re out…
Second marriage is permitted in sorrow… A mistake was made…
Third in desperation… There is dire need in abject weakness…
No fourth… On pain of excommunication…
Marriage is understood as self-sacrifice…
Not as a source of happiness…
Married couples, when baptized, are then given Orthodox Wedding…
eg They are given the Church’s Marriage…
Married for 20 years and now mere newly-weds…
But no second Honeymoon, mind you!
geo
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Yes, that is true and sad. But nothing about teaching. I agree that abuses should be fought against… but that’s it kinda.
I understand that, but fact this also applies to widowers (especially excommunication by fourth marriage) is not as standard. After all, there is no marriage in afterlife as noted by our Lord. There is even scenario where they name 7 brothers marrying one woman, and yet Lord does not tell them to stop after 3… this is one Eastern practice I can’t get my head around. Local Eastern Catholic Church rejects this practice as unscriptural to my knowledge. Indissolubility of marriage is a dogma to them (of course, exception being death). Does anybody know how do Oriental Orthodox work in this regard? Do they mirror Eastern Orthodox practice?
Aren’t all sacraments supposed to be source of grace and happiness? Relief? I understand it is about self-sacrifice… but isn’t self-sacrifice definition of “happiness” for a Christian?
Last edited:
W
Wandile
Guest
The oriental orthodox are closer to roman practice than to Eastern Orthodox practice. I think they allow divorce in the case of infidelity but that’s it.
- Status