Orthodox believe the same as Roman Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_J said:
With all due respect to Memaw, I just don’t agree with either of those two sentences.
Click to expand...
There are many points of agreements between Orthodox and Catholics; the problem is we often focus on the differences so much that we tend to look past each other. As an Orthodox (formerly Catholic; those who know me here long enough know how much I have defended the Catholic Church here and in other forums), I see these similarities than the differences. Of course, that doesn’t mean we don’t have differences; we do, and that’s a reality we also face. But if one is honest enough, the many similarities that we have are far greater than the differences we often look into.
 
Dauphin said:
In the sense that they obstinately reject infallibly defined Catholic dogma.
Click to expand...
You mean fallibly defined Vatican dogma, which was not believed everywhere, at all times by everyone, including at Rome.
 
Hesychios said:
Hello Dauphin,

If I may interject her, before I am off to bed… :coffeeread: I know that Cardinal Humberto and Cardinal Frederic condemned the Orthodox for castrating their guests. 😛
Michael
Click to expand...
Yes, I’ve wondered if they had some personal objection about that. OUch!
 
prodromos said:
What some breakaway patriarchate from almost a century ago has recently defined as dogma is no concern of ours. We hold fast to the faith we received, the faith that you once held to also.

John
Click to expand...
I think you mean “millennium”. 😃
 
Milliardo said:
There are many points of agreements between Orthodox and Catholics; the problem is we often focus on the differences so much that we tend to look past each other. As an Orthodox (formerly Catholic; those who know me here long enough know how much I have defended the Catholic Church here and in other forums), I see these similarities than the differences. Of course, that doesn’t mean we don’t have differences; we do, and that’s a reality we also face. But if one is honest enough, the many similarities that we have are far greater than the differences we often look into.
Click to expand...
Well said.

I think a lot of people – especially on the internet – are only interested in “Are we the same or are we different?” and never question further to try to understand what the differences are.
 
Peter_J said:
I think you mean “millennium”. 😃
Click to expand...
Could be. 🙂 I wish it were only a mere century ago, it might be easier to mend fences today.

It is also possible John was thinking about the age of the definition, which more precisely is 138 years, 9 days ago. If the Orthodox were present and voting the thing would never have passed.
 
Hesychios said:
Could be. 🙂 I wish it were only a mere century ago, it might be easier to mend fences today.

It is also possible John was thinking about the age of the definition, which more precisely is 138 years, 9 days ago. If the Orthodox were present and voting the thing would never have passed.
Click to expand...
I think you under-estimate the ultra-montanists at Vatican I. If the Orthodox bishops had been present and voting – which is a pretty far-fetched hypothetical to begin with, since that would require a prior reconciliation of Catholics and Orthodox – I suspect the ultra-montanists would simply declare the reconciliation to have failed, and then hold another vote without the Orthodox bishops.
 
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
This was quoted on the false premise that the Vatican Council was an ecumenical council. It was the exclusive “First Council of the Vatican”.
 
Ain’t the internet great. 😉

Don’t forget to tell her that the Eastern Orthodox believe the same as Roman Catholics.

I think we can all agree that both sides would “preserve a fairly major degree of autonomy” in the event of reunion. But some doctrinal issues still need to be agreed upon, especially the filioque, papal infallibility, and UOJ (papal supremacy).
 
Here’s some official Church teaching for you:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her.” - Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino.

Just because doctrinally castrated modern priests don’t say it anymore doesn’t make it untrue. Dogmatic definitions don’t change, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is one of them.
 
I suppose you’d be right - if they were dogmatic in nature. However, they are not.
Just because doctrinally castrated modern priests don’t say it anymore doesn’t make it untrue. Dogmatic definitions don’t change…
Click to expand...
You don’t even bother to distinguish between dogma and doctrine. I take that to mean that you believe that every “traditional” (i.e., “old”) doctrine that has ever been around Rome should be treated like dogma, and anyone who does not accept it “as is”, is a heretic.
 
Dauphin said:
Here’s some official Church teaching for you:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her." - Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino.
Click to expand...
Don’t let TriuneUnity hear about that … he might try to quote it against me.

Oh wait, he already did.
 
Jonathan_Cid said:
I suppose you’d be right - if they were dogmatic in nature. However, they are not.
Click to expand...
To a Catholic, this is a dogmatic definition. I have no interest in the opinions of heretics.
You don’t even bother to distinguish between dogma and doctrine. I take that to mean that you believe that every “traditional” (i.e., “old”) doctrine that has ever been around Rome should be treated like dogma, and anyone who does not accept it “as is”, is a heretic.
Click to expand...
A dogma, as I understand it, is an article of faith which has been laid down by authoritative decree.

What a Catholic is bound in faith to believe (ie. Catholic doctrine) is not limited to dogmatic definitions, but extends also to every doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Oral Tradition.

This would include the matters of the Divine Constitution of the Church, such as exclusively male clergy, and the universal and constant moral teaching of the Church, such as the prohibitions against artificial contraception and sexual impurity.
 
To a Catholic, this is a dogmatic definition. I have no interest in the opinions of heretics.
Click to expand...
You know, Dauphin, I’ve been mentally preparing for the day I “bump into” someone like you. Having had experience with gnosticism, and the gnostic heresy, I can say that you are the quintessential gnostic, and heretic.

I am a Catholic. Get over yourself. I understand that your high horse is quite comfy, and that your elitist, self-aggrandizing, all-knowing, sole-truth-holding self may find it hard to comprehend, but I don’t need your stamp of salvation. You do not hold the keys to the Kingdom, nor do you hold the salvific wisdom regarding those keys. Your opinions are divisive, hurtful to the Church, and based entirely on your own rationalizations in favor of the truth you wish existed because it in some unfortunate way places you in a position of ecstacy far above all the “low-lifes” of this world. Exploring the meaning of heresy, “divisive”, “opinion”, “choice”, you are more a heretic than I.

If Our Lord Himself taught humbly, and loved sinners, who are you to take such a condescending tone towards sinners? Who are you that you have no need of humility? I suppose one of those mysterious “truth-holders”, “world-haters”. Put your pride aside and have a little more consideration for the Catholic faith. Stop hiding your bigotry behind “zeal”. True religious zeal is a zeal for God who is love, and a zeal for souls. You don’t seem to incorporate either into your condemnations and pontifications.

If you want to hide behind “papal infallibility”, take the words of His Holiness Pope John XXII, when he clearly and solemnly spoke of papal infallibility and called it “the work of the devil.” This is the man to whom Our Lady of Mount Carmel appeared.

“You will know them by their fruits.”
 
Jonathan_Cid said:
You know, Dauphin, I’ve been mentally preparing for the day I “bump into” someone like you. Having had experience with gnosticism, and the gnostic heresy, I can say that you are the quintessential gnostic, and heretic.

I am a Catholic. Get over yourself. I understand that your high horse is quite comfy, and that your elitist, self-aggrandizing, all-knowing, sole-truth-holding self may find it hard to comprehend, but I don’t need your stamp of salvation. You do not hold the keys to the Kingdom, nor do you hold the salvific wisdom regarding those keys. Your opinions are divisive, hurtful to the Church, and based entirely on your own rationalizations in favor of the truth you wish existed because it in some unfortunate way places you in a position of ecstacy far above all the “low-lifes” of this world. Exploring the meaning of heresy, “divisive”, “opinion”, “choice”, you are more a heretic than I.

If Our Lord Himself taught humbly, and loved sinners, who are you to take such a condescending tone towards sinners? Who are you that you have no need of humility? I suppose one of those mysterious “truth-holders”, “world-haters”. Put your pride aside and have a little more consideration for the Catholic faith. Stop hiding your bigotry behind “zeal”. True religious zeal is a zeal for God who is love, and a zeal for souls. You don’t seem to incorporate either into your condemnations and pontifications.

If you want to hide behind “papal infallibility”, take the words of His Holiness Pope John XXII, when he clearly and solemnly spoke of papal infallibility and called it “the work of the devil.” This is the man to whom Our Lady of Mount Carmel appeared.

“You will know them by their fruits.”
Click to expand...
A Catholic is someone who accepts every doctrine of the Church and is subject to the Roman Pontiff.

The accusation of Gnosticism is just comical.
 
A Catholic is one who submits to the dogmas of the Church. Laugh it up - you’re a gnostic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top