A
AlNg
Guest
Would this rule out anyone under 7 years old since they may not have the capacity to understand the profession of faith?
Nuancing the "Original Church" to include Eastern Orthodox, Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodox
- Status
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
What about this one?
Click to expand.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I need help with the origins of the languages/Rites in the churches
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
S
steve-b
Guest
steve-b:
Your biased interpretation of the history is showing a little bit, Steve.
The Sack of Constantinople was carried out under the banners of mostly Venetian and other crusading forces. On the other hand, the Massacre of the Latins was done by a mob in response to the military rivalries between Venice, Genoa and other Italian maritime powers spilling out into the streets of Constantinople.
You see, Venice would set the Genoa quarter on fire. Genoa would respond in turn. The citizenry was tired of all the intra-Latin violence (and its collateral damage) within the city and wanted them all out. A political coup gave them the opportunity they wanted.
Vonsalza,
I gave my references as evidence for what I wrote, all properly referenced. I was NOT giving my opinion(s). What have you given? Your opinion(s) throwing references around with no proper referencing.
The authors that provided the evidence I gave, and the Credentials of those Authors
- Niketas Choniates. Background, historian
- Nadia Maria El-Cheikh’s background, historian
- William of Tyre: Archbishop, of Tyre, historian
- Warren Carroll Background historian
- Kallistos Ware Background, Metropolitan, historian .
BTW, If you want Ware’s book to read, that was referenced in the footnotes, here it is The Orthodox Church check out the chapter, “church under Islam”.
I read it many years ago.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Amen and Bishop Ware’s comment about the sin of pride been present on all sides is sadly very true and I submit given his posts about the Orthodox here and in the past that Steve might profit from reading very thoroughly that passage by the Bishop.
[/quote]
Actually, Bp Ware, said both sides were guilty of mistakes, but used “pride and contempt” with respect to the errors of the “Orthodox”
Bp Ware wrote
“Each [Catholics and Orthodox] … must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance.
Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to
prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for
example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine
period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182,
when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (5)”
BTW, 50,000 Latins massacred, and their children sold to Muslims, must have been quite a riot…agreed? With lasting effects.
[/quote]
Actually, Bp Ware, said both sides were guilty of mistakes, but used “pride and contempt” with respect to the errors of the “Orthodox”
Bp Ware wrote
“Each [Catholics and Orthodox] … must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance.
Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to
prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for
example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine
period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182,
when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (5)”
BTW, 50,000 Latins massacred, and their children sold to Muslims, must have been quite a riot…agreed? With lasting effects.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Look at the time line. If you can show that Eastern Orthodoxy goes back to the beginning, then please show it in writing properly referenced…
S
steve-b
Guest
Children baptized in Catholic families who are faithful Catholics, pass onto their children that faith and those conditions. And as you may know, or maybe not, that Children make their choice on their own, @ ~12 yrs old, by confirmation.steve-b:
Would this rule out anyone under 7 years old since they may not have the capacity to understand the profession of faith?
Last edited:
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
I don’t believe Canon 205 applies to our separated brethren.
CCC 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324
Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation;
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
Last edited:
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
The history you reveal here although tragic on both sides. The reality of the tension between East and West which arose from these atrocities, still linger with Eastern Church’s because, they became offended for generations because Rome placed a Bishop and began to conduct Latin Mass for the Latin Catholics living in Constantinople.
We cannot under estimate the great tension that exist with our Eastern brethren, even to this day, against the Bishop of Rome. The authority and jurisdiction which the Bishop of Rome possesses when he sits upon the Chair of Peter, becomes a false threat by the Eastern Church’s who would object to Peter’s = (Bishop of Rome) Primacy who presides over the whole Catholic Church in Love.
Vatican II has cleared up and removed this false threat possessed by Eastern Church’s. When She declares Latin Catholics are not to convert Eastern Catholic members from their own apostolic rite and vice versa.
We cannot under estimate the great tension that exist with our Eastern brethren, even to this day, against the Bishop of Rome. The authority and jurisdiction which the Bishop of Rome possesses when he sits upon the Chair of Peter, becomes a false threat by the Eastern Church’s who would object to Peter’s = (Bishop of Rome) Primacy who presides over the whole Catholic Church in Love.
Vatican II has cleared up and removed this false threat possessed by Eastern Church’s. When She declares Latin Catholics are not to convert Eastern Catholic members from their own apostolic rite and vice versa.
Last edited:
J
joeybaggz
Guest
I know this sounds flippant, but I would as them if they think Tiger Woods will win another major tournament, if the Pittsburgh Steelers would win the Super Bowl or the NY Yankees will win the world series. In my many years, I have come to understand that those truly committed to various Catholic churches not in communion with Rome, are not open to a positive discussion.
It is like the analogy I use with talking with an atheist and expecting a respectful and fruitful dialogue where one’s mind is changed. It’s like putting a potato and an avocado in a press and expecting to get orange juice. Go your way and let them go their way in peace. It isn’t worth the stress.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
As someone who went to college for a few degrees who wrote term paper after term paper, I’ve seen absolutely nothing from you that would meet an objective standard as being “properly referenced”. But suit yourself.
Indeed. I particularly enjoyed your reference to Catholic Theologian Walter Kasper for providing a credible source on Orthodoxy (which is akin to asking Baptists about Catholics and expecting a fair and honest answer) as well as your positioning of Orthodox Bishop Ware’s perspective in a way that could only be possible if you didn’t actually read what he wrote. As you appear to have [not] done…
If only the Orthodox had equally credible academics and theologians on their side… Oh. Wait.
Your core issue, Steve, is that you love to appeal to logos as the primary defense of your Catholicity despite your attachment being based overwhelmingly on a core appeal to pathos. -Which is fine! Absolutely fine! But that makes you far less academically impartial than you try to actually portray yourself. This became rather obvious from your outbursts above that drew some caution from a few of your fellow brothers in the faith.
Only a man firmly in the grip of emotional zealotry can view events like Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Holy Scripture itself in addition to the repeat, commonly found critiques levied at the Roman bishop by other patriarchs and fathers (even elderly Augustine) during the first millennium A.D. and STILL look at the Petrine Function and conclude “Oh my Lord, my God! How infallible Peter’s heir is! How supreme! How immediate!”
He grew into those functions. Papal power developed - unambiguously (if I had to pick a date, I’d pick the coronation of Charlemagne as the first
All due respect to the Catholics on this board. I fully recognize that this is a Catholic “house”. I’m just point out that some dissenting views may be legitimate.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Oh brother. “QED” typed as hard as I can type it…
You’ve yet to “properly reference” both that unrealistic number and the sale of children, sir.
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Eastern Orthodoxy has its origin in the apostolic churches, but apostolic churches that separated from Rome.
So there are two different senses:
(1) Eastern Orthodoxy’s traditions, liturgies, and apostolic origins go back the shared origin of all apostolic churches
(2) Eastern Orthodoxy as a communion of churches, i.e., “The Orthodox Church” does not go back to the beginning, since Christ founded one Church, which is the Catholic Church.
So there are two different senses:
(1) Eastern Orthodoxy’s traditions, liturgies, and apostolic origins go back the shared origin of all apostolic churches
(2) Eastern Orthodoxy as a communion of churches, i.e., “The Orthodox Church” does not go back to the beginning, since Christ founded one Church, which is the Catholic Church.
D
Dovekin
Guest
This separation does not work. Churches are “traditions, liturgies and apostolic origins” as the way of bringing people together. (as Dei Verbum puts it, “the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.”)
There was a communion of churches before the split, and that communion continued after the split. It continued in the Catholic Church, but now weakened by losing a significanr portion. And it continued in the churches that became known as Orthodoxy, though they lost a significant portion which included the bishop of Rome.
I am deeply sympathetic to your attempts to chart this, the use of blended colors, etc. it is not easy, probably will always fall short. I onder if it wouldn’t be easier to use a map instead of a time axis, showing the Church growing but introducing borders whose colors reflect the time of their separation. Probably would not work. Good luck with your attempts to understand and to display.
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I’m not sure how what I said contradicts what you said.
As Catholics, we profess the fullness of the Church “subsists in” the Catholic Church, that is, the communion united with Rome. So as Catholics, we cannot say that the “Eastern Orthodox Church” originates in the same exact sense as the Catholic Church (united in Rome does), since that would mean two competing church communions, as if each were the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
However, Eastern Orthodoxy in its individual particular churches are apostolic, but they do not thereby form a common communion that is equivalent to the One Original Catholic Church.
As Catholics, we profess the fullness of the Church “subsists in” the Catholic Church, that is, the communion united with Rome. So as Catholics, we cannot say that the “Eastern Orthodox Church” originates in the same exact sense as the Catholic Church (united in Rome does), since that would mean two competing church communions, as if each were the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
However, Eastern Orthodoxy in its individual particular churches are apostolic, but they do not thereby form a common communion that is equivalent to the One Original Catholic Church.
D
Dovekin
Guest
A cautionary note for those who refer to “the Chair of St Peter.”
There are two chairs with a claim to that name. One is a relic of St Peter that is in St Peter’s basilica at the Vatican, in an elaborate Bernini designed reliquary. It is a chair from which St Peter taught.
The other “Chair of St Peter” is a short distance away at the Cathedral of St JohnLateran. This is the seat of the bishop of Rome, comparable to the bishop’s chair in any cathedral in the world. It is significant but not ostentatious. The Lateran cathedral is the mother church of the Catholic church. It was donated by Constantine for that purpose. Interestingly, the main altar has another relic of St Peter, a table used by the saint for the Eucharist.
When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he probably is speaking from the Lateran. but I don’t know that for sure. On 22 February, we celebrate the Chair of Peter, the one at St Peter’s. The cathedral at the Lateran is recalled in November. The differences might help some articulate what they are saying about the papal identity.
There are two chairs with a claim to that name. One is a relic of St Peter that is in St Peter’s basilica at the Vatican, in an elaborate Bernini designed reliquary. It is a chair from which St Peter taught.
The other “Chair of St Peter” is a short distance away at the Cathedral of St JohnLateran. This is the seat of the bishop of Rome, comparable to the bishop’s chair in any cathedral in the world. It is significant but not ostentatious. The Lateran cathedral is the mother church of the Catholic church. It was donated by Constantine for that purpose. Interestingly, the main altar has another relic of St Peter, a table used by the saint for the Eucharist.
When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he probably is speaking from the Lateran. but I don’t know that for sure. On 22 February, we celebrate the Chair of Peter, the one at St Peter’s. The cathedral at the Lateran is recalled in November. The differences might help some articulate what they are saying about the papal identity.
D
Dovekin
Guest
The church in Athens dates roughly to the time when St Paul preached at the Areopagus. It formed bonds with the churches at Corinth and Sparta, Nyssa and Byzantium. There was a communion of churches, largely distinguished by the use of Greek as their vernacular language, that developed liturgy, traditions, etc. That communion was part of the Catholic Church, that is, the Catholic Church subsisted in those churches.
After the mutual excommunications that communion of churches persisted through the handing on of the same liturgy, traditions, etc. The bonds that had once united them continued, though the Catholic Church no longer subsisted in those Churches (in the same way?).
IOW, there was a recognizable, distinct group of churches that existed from the apostolic age, that continues now as the Greek Orthodox Church. When its bond with Rome was impaired, the Catholic Church no longer was its subsistence, but was still the basis for its cohesion.
If that doesn’t make sense, I’ll try again tomorrow. Maybe I will be more awake, though that does not mean I will be more coherent.
After the mutual excommunications that communion of churches persisted through the handing on of the same liturgy, traditions, etc. The bonds that had once united them continued, though the Catholic Church no longer subsisted in those Churches (in the same way?).
IOW, there was a recognizable, distinct group of churches that existed from the apostolic age, that continues now as the Greek Orthodox Church. When its bond with Rome was impaired, the Catholic Church no longer was its subsistence, but was still the basis for its cohesion.
If that doesn’t make sense, I’ll try again tomorrow. Maybe I will be more awake, though that does not mean I will be more coherent.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I think they do, C1S. Their Primus seems to more closely reflect the Primus of the early Apostolic Church where Peter’s heir was neither immediate nor supreme nor infallible.
Pre-Nicene Papal Power =/= Post-Vatican 1 Papal Power per virtually any credible secular historian.
A
AlNg
Guest
Suppose they are baptized in a Catholic family but the Catholic couple is a SS couple and are not faithful to Catholic teaching. Are the children who were baptized then Catholics or not?
D
Dovekin
Guest
They form a common communion that is a part of the Church catholic, similar to the Maronites. (the recent ARCIC document “uses ‘Church catholic’ in reference to the one Church of Christ.” Seems like a good idea)
It does not compete with the Church catholic because it is part of it.
- Status