More Schism in the East (2018)

[YHWH_Christ]

Yeah so I just read the Q&A from the article, and it indeed continues the old misunderstanding. Its first error is to summarize everything as Orthodox vs “the West.” There is a HUGE difference between Catholics and Calvinists, for example!

But you do ultimately believe in a form of original guilt. You believe this is a punishment for sin. Orthodox do not believe sin causes death per se, but death causes sin.

 

[AlNg]

The claims to the true church are mutually exclusive, but as to the teachings, maybe only the teaching regarding the Pope (from the Catholic perspective), since there are Eastern Catholic counterparts — theology, spirituality, liturgy — to all of the other non-Catholic Eastern communions.

If the teachings on the filioque and leavened bread are the same why did the Roman Catholics excommunicate the Greek Orthodox in 1054 citing those as reasons for the excommunication?
The Orthodox do not accept the universal papal jurisdiction and those that I have spoke with do not accept the Catholic clown Mass. Also their position is that the filioque be removed from the creed as it was originally.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I can’t keep playing he said she said.

If you want to foster division, fine. I prefer to see the commonalities between Orthodox and Catholics.

That, and just state the facts.

This is what the Catechism says, contrary to the article you cited:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

So no, Catholicism does not teach that Original Sin happens by way of personal guilt or fault.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

If the teachings on the filioque and leavened bread are the same why did the Roman Catholics excommunicate the Greek Orthodox in 1054 citing those as reasons for the excommunication?

I never said these weren’t issues of the past. They obviously WERE and helped foster the division.

But the Catholic side has evolved since then, seeing the past misunderstandings and the complementary aspects as well. Just ask some Eastern Catholics. They exist, I promise!

 

[YHWH_Christ]

This is what the Internal Theological Commision in the Vatican said in “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized” contrary to your assertions.

“Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam’s sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act. . .”

 

[RealisticCatholic]

And?

As I have said, The Catholic Church does NOT equal a single Western theological tradition.

What you describe was never dogma, but a dominant theological tradition.

Again, read what the Catholic Church teaches (Present tense) and also recognize there are Eastern Catholics.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Again, it says:

“The fate of unbaptized infants first became the subject of sustained theological reflection in the West during the anti-Pelagian controversies of the early 5th century. St. Augustine addressed the question because Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. . . . In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell. . . . Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. . . .”

“But most of the later medieval authors, from Peter Abelard on, underline the goodness of God and interpret Augustine’s “mildest punishment” as the privation of the beatific vision (carentia visionis Dei), without hope of obtaining it, but with no additional penalties. This teaching, which modified the strict opinion of St. Augustine, was disseminated by Peter Lombard: little children suffer no penalty except the privation of the vision of God. . . .”

“Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at all, or even that they enjoy a full natural happiness through their union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus). The contribution of this last theological thesis consists especially in its recognition of an authentic joy among children who die without sacramental Baptism: they possess a true form of union with God proportionate to their condition. . . . Even when they adopted such a view, theologians considered the privation of the beatific vision as an affliction (“punishment”) within the divine economy. . . .”

 

[YHWH_Christ]

You are the western tradition though.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

@YHWH_Christ

So you really think Catholicism equals Augustine?

You can save your energy, because I’ve addressed that already.

I know well what the Western tradition includes. But this is not official, unviversal Catholic doctrine.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

So you really think Catholicism equals Augustine?

For the most part.

You can save your energy, because I’ve addressed that already.

And I refuted your common RC arguments against holy Orthodoxy.

I know well what the Western tradition includes. But this is not official, unviversal Catholic doctrine.

It is the doctrine of the Latin Church.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

It is the doctrine of the Latin Church.

I gave you the doctrine of the Latin Church. See Catechism. Very Roman

For the most part.

Augustine is part of the West; West is not part of Augustine

Catholic Church includes not only West and its various traditions, but the East and its various traditions — Coptic, Syriac, Greek Byzantine, Ukrainian, Syro-Malabar, Chaldean…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[RealisticCatholic]

And I refuted your common RC arguments against holy Orthodoxy.

I don’t remember anything about arguing against “holy Orthodoxy”??? And hence, neither do I recall any refutations.

 

[AlNg]

Just ask some Eastern Catholics. They exist, I promise!

Eastern Catholics exist, but the Catholic clown Mass also exists. Some Orthodox object to recognizing the clown Mass or the puppet Mass as a respectful and authentic liturgical form.
Further, there are serious differences on artificial birth control. As I understand it to be, if an Orthodox couple has five children, for example, and they are facing financial difficulties, or the wife is having serious health issues and may die if she bears more children (she already has five), then they may ask the priest for permission to use birth control.

 

[steve-b]

But the Orthodox Church claims to be the original Church.

“claims” need proof
Where is THAT claim, in writing, from the beginning, properly referenced?

YHWH_Christ:

It is the Roman Catholic Church which is understood to be the Church that separated from the Orthodox Church as heretics.

Again, show me where “Orthodox Church” first appears in writing, in history?

Even in 325, what does the Nicene Creed say is an article of faith? “I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”.

YHWH_Christ:

Also, Orthodox do believe they are united to Peter because every Bishop is thought to be a successor to St. Peter.

That’s NOT how Jesus set it up. Show me where every bishop is a successor to Peter in scripture. When Judas was replaced, and his office was to be filled they voted for Mathias. Was Mathias a successor then to Peter?
Nope!

Yet All the others are in union with Istanbul and the EP.?

YHWH_Christ:

Yes. For example, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is in communion with Constantinople and Moscow even though Moscow and Constantinople are not in communion with each other. You don’t seem to be getting Orthodox ecclesiology. It is not the same as Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Once again, just because one Church is not in communion with another Church in the Eastern Orthodox Church does not mean it is not in communion with other Churches in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The lack of communion is bigger than you admit. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pan-orthodox-meltdown-ahead-of-great-council

steve-b:

Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore.

YHWH_Christ:

Constantinople does exist today as Istanbul and still acts as the New Rome in the EP.

Based on the previous article, seems the EP’s authority is being ignored by a majority of the Orthodox.

The “PAN” meeting that was supposed to take place but didn’t , because the Russians and 3 other churches out of the 15 churches, boycotted the meeting, gives a different impression than the one you present.

YHWH_Christ:

Ok? That doesn’t prove anything. I don’t know what you see in that. Each Church has it’s own degree of Independence and can chose to or not to participate in something. Once again, for the 1 millionth time, Orthodox ecclesiology does not operate in the same way as Catholic ecclesiology.

That’s because the “Orthodox” have authority issues.

YHWH_Christ:

Well, I’m sure the Churches that met were small. But I don’t see what this has to do with anything.

You’re kidding right? When the majority of Orthodoxy boycotted the meeting?

 

[twf]

Very typical of certain Orthodox on the internet to use Orthodox sources to try to convince Catholics that we believe something we don’t….
Thankfully the Orthodox I know in real life are more ecumenically understanding.

 

[theCardinalbird]

to recognizing the clown Mass

What on earth is the clown mass?

 

[theCardinalbird]

405 Although it is proper to each individual original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

But you do ultimately believe in a form of original guilt. You believe this is a punishment for sin. Orthodox do not believe sin causes death per se, but death causes sin.

Show me the teachings of the Catholic Church, from Catholic teaching not Orthodox websites, that points to our belief in a form of original guilt

 

[YHWH_Christ]

“claims” need proof

Yes, and Orthodox they have that proof.

Where is THAT claim, in writing, from the beginning, properly referenced?

In the Orthodox Church…?

Again, show me where “Orthodox Church” first appears in writing, in history?

Even in 325, what does the Nicene Creed say is an article of faith? “I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”.

The Orthodox Church claims to be the Catholic Church. You do realize the full name of the Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Catholic Church… right? You claim to be that original Catholic Church, so do the Orthodox. The West is the Roman Catholic Church, the East is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

But seriously though, are you really going to argue over naming? Because there’s a lot of holes in that one.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

That’s NOT how Jesus set it up. Show me where every bishop is a successor to Peter in scripture. When Judas was replaced, and his office was to be filled they voted for Mathias. Was Mathias a successor then to Peter?

Matthew 16:18. Here Peter is the rock not just in his person but his faith. Don’t mistake me, I am not saying Peter isn’t in the definition of rock like Protestants say. No, it’s specifically Peter’s faith that is important here because it is the rock which all Bishops must have. The pun here demands it. This is confirmed by Jesus later in Matthew 18:18 when all the apostles are given the authority to bind and loose because they are all standing on the rock of specifically Peter and his faith, therefore they are given to right to be successors to Peter in Matthew 18:18.

Also, the unanimous consent of the Fathers confirm this. Especially St. Cyprian who tells us all Bishops are successors to Peter. St. Cyprian directly ties the promise of Christ to St. Peter to the office of the episcopacy.

Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and to the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter, I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19). Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates.

Interestingly St. Cyprian also says this which effectively refutes Papal Supremacy:

For no one [of us ] has set himself up to be bishop of bishops, or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone has the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions in that position.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Again, St. Gregory of Nyssa says this:

“It is through Peter that Christ gave to bishops the keys of their heavenly prerogative”

Pope St. Leo says this:

'If our Lord willed that there should be something common to Peter and the rest of the princes of His Church, it was only on this condition, that whatsoever He gave to the rest, He gave it to them through Peter."

Even Augustine confirms this:

He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation…Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies

As we see, the Church Fathers unanimously confirm that it is all Bishops that are successors to Peter whose personal faith the Church was founded on and which all Bishops rest upon.