Orthodox believe the same as Roman Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jonathan_Cid said:
A Catholic is one who submits to the dogmas of the Church. Laugh it up - you’re a gnostic.
Click to expand...
I see, so Catholics are permitted to reject Sacred Scripture? It contains no dogmatic decrees of the magisterium.

I don’t think you know what a dogma is.
 
Dauphin said:
I see, so Catholics are permitted to reject Sacred Scripture? It contains no dogmatic decrees of the magisterium.

I don’t think you know what a dogma is.
Click to expand...
I bet you think there’s alot I don’t know (and I will humble myself in saying that I’m sure there is), that you just so happen to know. Congrats! What’s important is that God assures that I know all that is essential to my faith through His Holy Church - i.e., dogmas.

The Church Father, Saint Vincent of Lerins, says that Catholics must hold fast that which been believed “everywhere, always, and by all.” The early Church, whilst yet united in ecumenical councils defined various dogmas of universality.

The Scriptures have been held “everywhere, always, and by all” Catholics.
 
Jonathan_Cid said:
I bet you think there’s alot I don’t know, that you just so happen to know. Congrats!

The Church Father, Saint Vincent of Lerins, says that Catholics must hold fast that which been believed “everywhere, always, and by all.” The early Church, whilst yet united in ecumenical councils defined various dogmas of universality.

The Scriptures have been held “everywhere, always, and by all” Catholics.
Click to expand...
Exactly. What’s required for belief (Catholic doctrine) is not limited to dogmatic definitions made by Popes or general councils, but includes the entire deposit of faith.
 
Dogma exists even if it is not defined. As I stated, it is essential to our faith. So essential, in fact, that God could not leave us without it. It is truth, and always exists, even before it is defined, and regardless of definition.

Doctrine simply means teaching. Even many saints held doctrines that very serious traditional Catholics would consider incorrect.
 
Jonathan_Cid said:
Dogma exists even if it is not defined. As I stated, it is essential to our faith. So essential, in fact, that God could not leave us without it. It is truth, and always exists, even before it is defined, and regardless of definition.

Doctrine simply means teaching. Even many saints held doctrines that very serious traditional Catholics would consider incorrect.
Click to expand...
Catholic doctrine means the entire Christian teaching.
Catholic dogma means those doctrines which have been decreed by a Pope or a general council.
Both require belief.
 
Dauphin said:
Catholic doctrine means the entire Christian teaching.
Catholic dogma means those doctrines which have been decreed by a Pope or a general council.
Both require belief.
Click to expand...
I would much rather accept the definition of the Church Father than your rationalizing of supreme Papal authority. The infallibility of the Pope is not essential to Catholic faith, and has not been believed “everywhere, always, and by all” Catholics. Your attempted addition of that intricacy to the Papacy distorts the Papacy as to make it the Church itself, which is contradictory to - the Church.

Of course, our bickering will not change your mind. You’re in my prayers and sacrifices. Maybe you don’t consider me your fellow Catholic, but I consider you my fellow Catholic, and I will pray for you as I pray for all others in my Catholic family. We cannot “be One” as Our Lord intended unless and until we all humble ourselves. There is no part of the Body of Christ exempt from the requirement of humility.

By the way, I also love political science. 😉
 
Hesychios said:
It is also possible John was thinking about the age of the definition, which more precisely is 138 years, 9 days ago.
Click to expand...
Alas Peter was correct, I meant to say millenium. Brain cells not working like they used to 😛
 
Peter_J said:
Dude, why are you making fun of Ohio? What did Ohio ever do to you? :mad:
Click to expand...
True. I’m rather fond of Ohio.

My priest has been a charter memeber of the Cardinal Ratzinger fan club. The cafeteria is now closed.
 
I don’t believe that the Orthodox can be held accountable for not believing in Papal Infallibility.

They split from us a long time before that became dogma and it was a debatable position when they left. Now no doubt it is a factor as it is probably the single biggest road block to reunification.

The rest that seperates us is politics, semantics and pride.
 
In some ways, I think that it is good. I know that we are called to be one as Jesus and the Father are one. THat is not the aspect that I am talking about. It is good that we still have each other. For the majority of our doctrines, we can point to the EO to show that the Church has always taught it in some form. It is one defense of the faith that we all too often ignore.

I wish we could get together, I really do. There is just too much ill will, misunderstandings, pride, and all that to keep us from discussing the actual issues.
 
ralphinal said:
In some ways, I think that it is good. I know that we are called to be one as Jesus and the Father are one. THat is not the aspect that I am talking about. It is good that we still have each other. For the majority of our doctrines, we can point to the EO to show that the Church has always taught it in some form. It is one defense of the faith that we all too often ignore.
Click to expand...
Very true.
 
Dauphin said:
If we are to have dialogue, then it should acknowledge the profound doctrinal differences between two churches and should result in communion only when there is a perfect and unambiguous unity of doctrine.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, i will not call them “schismatics or heretics”, and i am no “modernist”. 😉 Just recently, a priest from an Orthodox church conducted a vigil and ecumenical dialogue in my parish. I did not get the chance to attend, but from what i hear, both parties gained much insight and knowledge and embraced one another.

"We must realize that Orthodox and Catholic believers are no longer rivals. We are allies. The rivalry must be gone once and for all. If we understand that, proselytism will stop." — **Bishop Hilarion - Russian Orthodox Bishop of Vienna and Austria **
 
ralphinal said:
I think the frame of reference needs to be taken into account. There are differences between the two, some quite major. However, if viewed from a Protestant perspective, they shrink greatly.
Click to expand...
I think most orthodox are pretty much in communion wih the catholic church.
 
piccione said:
I think most orthodox are pretty much in communion wih the catholic church.
Click to expand...
The Roman Catholic Church. Orthodox consider themselves just as Catholic as any Roman Catholic and I think would be offended to be thought of as “non-Catholic”.
 
Jonathan_Cid said:
The Roman Catholic Church. Orthodox consider themselves just as Catholic as any Roman Catholic and I think would be offended to be thought of as “non-Catholic”.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. They would be offended if by Catholic you meant in union with Rome. They do consider themselves part of the original Church, and they are.

It is one of the problems with language. Latin Rite Catholic in union with Rome is too long. RCC is easier, Catholic alone is even shorter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top