Orthodoxy makes the most sence. protestantism is just man made division. the question is latin or eastern Church?

[dzheremi]

I’m not implying that it is lacking, I’m saying it’s lacking. I agree with Pope Benedict XVI that it is defective in that it is out of union with the papacy. The Orthodox lack the Rock. No implication. I’m not being coy.

The interesting thing about claims like that one is that when the Orthodox were in union with Rome, none of the divisive issues that separate us now had risen to the level of codified dogmatic pronouncements. The filioque, for instance, was a local addition that spread from Toledo outwards, and had been resisted as an “official addition” by many popes of Rome. How, then, can it be claimed that the Orthodox are defective in not accepting present Latin dogmas when they were not always and everywhere present within the Latin church, either?

It seems to me that if the Pope of Rome wants to make the most out of this infallibility stuff, he’d use his power to bring the Church into line with its own history, particularly if he is as concerned about the return to tradition as Pope Benedict XVI seems to be. The Catholic Church has 2000 years of history (as do the Orthodox), but all the “traditionalist” movements I’ve seen seem to think that we could go back to about 1950 and be fine. I don’t get it. Why stop there?

 

[Mickey]

**And what about good ole’ Heraclius, the Emperor, and the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, who concocted this heresy? **

We are talking here about a heretical Pope.

**It’s funny how all the heresies always came out of the East **

Nice attempt to misdirect. There were many heresies in the East. And all of them were aptly refuted. Heck, the whole Church was almost Arian at one time. But we are talking here about the “concept” of infallibility and it’s relation to a heretical Pope.

**Honorius never proclaimed it to be doctrine and he never once officially sanctioned or encouraged Monothelitism **

It must drive you nuts when you try to defend the odd doctrine of infallibility and you have a Pope in Church history who was condemned as a heretic. His letters were burned and called “hurtful to the soul”. I think it was the 18th session of the council where Honorius was referred to as the tool for the originator of evil. He was called “a confirmer of heresy”.

Sheesh gurney…you have not much of a leg to stand on here!

 

[Mickey]

The interesting thing about claims like that one is that when the Orthodox were in union with Rome, none of the divisive issues that separate us now had risen to the level of codified dogmatic pronouncements. The filioque, for instance, was a local addition that spread from Toledo outwards, and had been resisted as an “official addition” by many popes of Rome. How, then, can it be claimed that the Orthodox are defective in not accepting present Latin dogmas when they were not always and everywhere present within the Latin church, either?

It seems to me that if the Pope of Rome wants to make the most out of this infallibility stuff, he’d use his power to bring the Church into line with its own history, particularly if he is as concerned about the return to tradition as Pope Benedict XVI seems to be. The Catholic Church has 2000 years of history (as do the Orthodox), but all the “traditionalist” movements I’ve seen seem to think that we could go back to about 1950 and be fine. I don’t get it. Why stop there?

Amen my brother in Christ! Here are two interesting quotes:

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco*, CA: Ignatius Press]******

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

 

[Mickey]

But what strikes me is that if the Orthodox are right, the rest of us are all just protestants.

You are not the first to surmise this.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Just think that it should be mentioned that the proof that it was the Eastern Orthodox that split from the Catholic Church (and not the other way around) seems to be the fact that some of the Eastern Catholic Rites (remember that the Catholic Church includes both the Western (Latin) Rite and the Eastern Catholic Rites) never did split from the Catholic Church which necessitated a return from the Eastern Orthodox back to the Catholic.

 

[Mickey]

Just think that it should be mentioned that the proof that it was the Eastern Orthodox that split from the Catholic Church (and not the other way around) seems to be the fact that some of the Eastern Catholic Rites (remember that the Catholic Church includes both the Western (Latin) Rite and the Eastern Catholic Rites) never did split from the Catholic Church which necessitated a return from the Eastern Orthodox back to the Catholic.

Oh brother.

On that note…I think my time on this thread has just about come to an end.

 

[dzheremi]

I assume you are referring to the Maronites and (possibly) the Italo-Albanians (I can’t remember if that’s the right name)? I know basically nothing about the second group, but the Maronites I have done some background research on and they are an extremely interesting case. While thoroughly Eastern in character and Catholic in alignment, there is some question as to their ultimate origin (some of the Orthodox apologetics I have read claim that they were originally a section of the Syrian Jacobites, but I haven’t read any primary sources on this), and even then their own historians readily admit that even though communion was not technically or formally broken as was the case with the mutual excommunications of 1054, there was a defacto disruption in communion due to the relative isolation and intense persecution of the Maronites, and that when communion was re-established, Rome sent the worst possible regents, who concocted all kinds of fantastic lies against the Maronites and their Church, burning their books for their imagined “heresies” and enforcing upon them Latin customs. I do not think that it ever reached the level that the Maronites were effectively barred from communion, but there was definitely a price paid for re-establishing that contact that I don’t think should be overlooked in the rush to use the Maronites to legitimize Rome’s claims of universality.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**You can keep busting out the heretic pope comment all day until you turn blue in the face; you know as well as anyone else that it doesn’t disprove infallibility because he never affirmed it or taught it publically. That’s a thorn in your side you can’t pull out. You really wish he had taught it publically, don’t you! You wish he had put it into some type of encyclical and made it dogma. You wish he had proclaimed it from the palantine, the hill tops. The bummer, man, is he didn’t! He was anathamized for negligence, for a failure to defend against the heresy, for being too quiet. That’s a matter of record. Show me, Mickey, where he proclaimed it publically and taught it ex cathedra. I better not start holding my breath! I’ll explode because you’ll never prove it. Why? Because he never did it…No Catholic will disagree that his inaction was wrong, his silence was the cheesy way out, but we will not agree with you that it has anything whatsoever to do with infallibility. So go on saying “heretic” “heretic” over and over. It doesn’t prove your case. **

We are talking here about a heretical Pope.

Not at all an attempt. Just an observation.Nice attempt to misdirect. There were many heresies in the East. And all of them were aptly refuted. Heck, the whole Church was almost Arian at one time. But we are talking here about the “concept” of infallibility and it’s relation to a heretical Pope.

It would only drive me nuts if he had taught Monothelitism ex cathedra and had made it official dogma. Then you’d be right. But, darn it for ya, he never did! This might come as a shock to you, Mickey, but we Catholics are aware of our bad popes. There have been plenty of them. Some have been downright dastardly in their private lives and have been very corrupt. Yes, we know. We’re aware. We don’t try to smooth over and cover the wrinkles. But I challenge you again to show me his ex cathedra teaching before all of Christendom. Then I’ll yield and become an Orthodox for ya.It must drive you nuts when you try to defend the odd doctrine of infallibility and you have a Pope in Church history who was condemned as a heretic. His letters were burned and called “hurtful to the soul”. I think it was the 18th session of the council where Honorius was referred to as the tool for the originator of evil. He was called “a confirmer of heresy”.
I’m comfortably standing on both, Mickey. Very comfortably. With your repeated weak argument about Honorius, you’re a one trick pony with a gimpy leg yourself. Try again.
Sheesh gurney…you have not much of a leg to stand on here!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You are correct that Toledo was the epicenter for a larger acceptance of the filioque but quite frankly Augustine, Tertullian, Ambrose of Milan, Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, and many others professed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through or and the Son as well…St. Cyril of Alexandria claimed the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son in a well-known argument against Nestorianism also. You also need to look at the context of Toledo and the heresies surrounding. The filioque was a reaction to the notion that Jesus the Son was less and inferior to God the Father because only the Father could issue forth the Holy Spirit. The filioque tried to show the connection and oneness of the Father and Son. I fail to see why this small addition, which in essence is not a problem at all, is such a constant source of irritation and angst for Orthodox. In seventh century Spain Aryanism was being fought vigorously and the filioque was a main argument against the ideas of Aryanism itself. This added statement to the Creed came later in the game but it doesn’t necessarily mean the addition isn’t truthful due to the tardy hour of its arrival. The Church can always continue to define and reveal truths. I think the stagnation of doctrine and dogma that Orthodoxy encourages, the inability to, in an ongoing way, explain, understand, and reveal the truths of Christ. The Catholic Church didn’t shy away from the development of this doctrine, the need to make it known. The Council of Nicaea wasn’t all encompassing for all time. The Church merely added to its truths and helped crystalize it. I don’t see a problem with it; if I did I’d go Orthodox.

The interesting thing about claims like that one is that when the Orthodox were in union with Rome, none of the divisive issues that separate us now had risen to the level of codified dogmatic pronouncements. The filioque, for instance, was a local addition that spread from Toledo outwards, and had been resisted as an “official addition” by many popes of Rome. How, then, can it be claimed that the Orthodox are defective in not accepting present Latin dogmas when they were not always and everywhere present within the Latin church, either?

It seems to me that if the Pope of Rome wants to make the most out of this infallibility stuff, he’d use his power to bring the Church into line with its own history, particularly if he is as concerned about the return to tradition as Pope Benedict XVI seems to be. The Catholic Church has 2000 years of history (as do the Orthodox), but all the “traditionalist” movements I’ve seen seem to think that we could go back to about 1950 and be fine. I don’t get it. Why stop there?

 

[wisdomseeker]

You are correct that Toledo was the epicenter for a larger acceptance of the filioque but quite frankly Augustine, Tertullian, Ambrose of Milan, Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, and many others professed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through or and the Son as well…St. Cyril of Alexandria claimed the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son in a well-known argument against Nestorianism also. You also need to look at the context of Toledo and the heresies surrounding. The filioque was a reaction to the notion that Jesus the Son was less and inferior to God the Father because only the Father could issue forth the Holy Spirit. The filioque tried to show the connection and oneness of the Father and Son. I fail to see why this small addition, which in essence is not a problem at all, is such a constant source of irritation and angst for Orthodox. In seventh century Spain Aryanism was being fought vigorously and the filioque was a main argument against the ideas of Aryanism itself. This added statement to the Creed came later in the game but it doesn’t necessarily mean the addition isn’t truthful due to the tardy hour of its arrival. The Church can always continue to define and reveal truths. I think the stagnation of doctrine and dogma that Orthodoxy encourages, the inability to, in an ongoing way, explain, understand, and reveal the truths of Christ. The Catholic Church didn’t shy away from the development of this doctrine, the need to make it known. The Council of Nicaea wasn’t all encompassing for all time. The Church merely added to its truths and helped crystalize it. I don’t see a problem with it; if I did I’d go Orthodox.

while Orthodox and protestants fight against the CC in all things, the CC will go on as the True Church despite of the opposition of these Chrisitians and the world. blessed be the CC, the Church of our Lord.

 

[PJM]

=excaliber;6341813]No I simply think the bishops were not to change anything Christ taught them.
However as far as man made rules, I do think a bishop can change them in his jurisdiction.

I don’t think the early church was a democracy…the apostles wrote to the churches to instruct them, but I see no evidence of any talk or belief that ONE of them was infalible.

FYI:

On any issue of Faith [including everything dealing with the Mass] and or Morals, Rome RULES.

Outside of these two very broad catagories; the Bishops exercise semi-unlimited power an authority.

 

[Hesychios]

He was called “a confirmer of heresy”.

This relates to the Pope’s role as a teacher and church leader as claimed by the Papacy. If we need the Pope’s approval to teach, shouldn’t we expect something better?

He failed in his duty to defend the faith by confirming a fellow bishop in his error.

To wit:

FYI:

On any issue of Faith [including everything dealing with the Mass] and or Morals, Rome RULES.

Outside of these two very broad catagories; the Bishops exercise semi-unlimited power an authority.

I agree that this is the position of the Latin Catholic church.

… “But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.”

Lumen Gentium:
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

If that is the position of the Latin Catholic church, then it has to account for allowing Honorius to sit on the chair. This would be an issue with or without the claim of Papal Infallibility, but since that is another (recent, since 1870AD) additional boast it just makes the claims for the bishop of Rome look even more improbable.

 

[Hesychios]

Just think that it should be mentioned that the proof that it was the Eastern Orthodox that split from the Catholic Church (and not the other way around) seems to be the fact that some of the Eastern Catholic Rites (remember that the Catholic Church includes both the Western (Latin) Rite and the Eastern Catholic Rites) never did split from the Catholic Church which necessitated a return from the Eastern Orthodox back to the Catholic.

This post is proof only of your lack of knowledge about the historical facts.

In fact, as dzheremi points out, there are only two churches out of more than twenty where that claim is even plausible, and both cases are open to debate.

I assume you are referring to the Maronites and (possibly) the Italo-Albanians (I can’t remember if that’s the right name)? I know basically nothing about the second group, but the Maronites I have done some background research on and they are an extremely interesting case.

… and even then their own historians readily admit that even though communion was not technically or formally broken as was the case with the mutual excommunications of 1054, there was a defacto disruption in communion due to the relative isolation and intense persecution of the Maronites, and that when communion was re-established, Rome sent the worst possible regents, who concocted all kinds of fantastic lies against the Maronites and their Church, burning their books for their imagined “heresies” and enforcing upon them Latin customs. I do not think that it ever reached the level that the Maronites were effectively barred from communion, but there was definitely a price paid for re-establishing that contact that I don’t think should be overlooked in the rush to use the Maronites to legitimize Rome’s claims of universality.

In fact, the only Catholics in the East before 1054AD were the Melkites, and the Melkite Catholics clearly saw the Maronites as heretics.

Thus, if we were to argue that both the Melkites and the Maronites were in communion with Rome but not one another, we are arguing for a completely different ecclesiology than exists in the Papal church today. There is no way for the Melkites to break communion with another Eastern Catholic church. or for the Maronites to break communion with another Eastern Catholic church without breaking from Rome.

Yet, this is what we are asked to believe happened in the first millenium Catholic church.

In fact the Catholic church in Lebanon and Syria was the Melkite church, and the Maronites, who knew them as neighbors, were not in communion with them.

The Byzantine rite of Italy is another chimera.

It was suppressed after the Normans, the entire Latin Catholic church structure of southern Italy (all of the dioceses) was originally Byzantine, and was ‘converted’ to the Latin by a replacement of bishops.

The present Italo-Albanian church is derived from Orthodox immigrants in the sixteenth century.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Michael,
I’m always impressed with your amazing knowledge of Church history, Catholic and Orthodox.

This post is proof only of your lack of knowledge about the historical facts.

In fact, as dzheremi points out, there are only two churches out of more than twenty where that claim is even plausible, and both cases are open to debate.

In fact, the only Catholics in the East before 1054AD were the Melkites, and the Melkite Catholics clearly saw the Maronites as heretics.

Thus, if we were to argue that both the Melkites and the Maronites were in communion with Rome but not one another, we are arguing for a completely different ecclesiology than exists in the Papal church today. There is no way for the Melkites to break communion with another Eastern Catholic church. or for the Maronites to break communion with another Eastern Catholic church without breaking from Rome.

Yet, this is what we are asked to believe happened in the first millenium Catholic church.

In fact the Catholic church in Lebanon and Syria was the Melkite church, and the Maronites, who knew them as neighbors, were not in communion with them.

The Byzantine rite of Italy is another chimera.

It was suppressed after the Normans, the entire Latin Catholic church structure of southern Italy (all of the dioceses) was originally Byzantine, and was ‘converted’ to the Latin by a replacement of bishops.

The present Italo-Albanian church is derived from Orthodox immigrants in the sixteenth century.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I love posts that have “uh, er” in them. Reminds me of Chris Farley on SNL. Remember him in Tommy Boy? “Uhhh, errrr.” LOL

Of course you are.

And that is because he is…uh…er…infallible?

 

[Nine_Two]

You are correct that Toledo was the epicenter for a larger acceptance of the filioque but quite frankly Augustine, Tertullian, Ambrose of Milan, Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, and many others professed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through or and the Son as well.

“Through the son” is considered to be Orthodox doctrine. It’s the “and the son” in the context of the creed that is opposed.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t doubt you that there are liberal loons in the Catholic Church out there. I have a friend in a seminary and he tells me some of the wild and wacky stuff professors (priests) and some of these soon-to-be priests believe and say, turns the stomach. It’s the times, the Fall, and the folly of man. I also hear of Orthodox priests and bishops in some parts condoning birth control like nothin’ and permitting divorces throwing out divorce certificates and letting people remarry as easily as these Catholic marriage tribunals. It goes all directions, sin. People in Orthodoxy aren’t flawless nor are Catholics. Papal decrees, well that’s another matter

Take a visit to Fransican University some time.

Things move awful slow at Rome. I hope you are correct. But I wouldn’t hold your breath.
You’ll never see the N.O. completely outsky.
It turns the stomach.
I’m sure you do not hate them personally–just the innovation.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m your brother in Christ, too, right Mick?

Amen my brother in Christ! Here are two interesting quotes:

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (

San Francisco**, CA: Ignatius Press]******

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

From what I’ve read about Benedict’s opinions, I don’t think that language is necessarily something the CC would never consider…as long as the equality and oneness of God in both Father and Son are demonstrated as playing a role in the coming of the Spirit…

This is not an issue that should divide at all…

“Through the son” is considered to be Orthodox doctrine. It’s the “and the son” in the context of the creed that is opposed.

 

[Hesychios]

The present Italo-Albanian church is derived from Orthodox immigrants in the -]sixteenth/-] century.

Actually, I should have written fifteenth century. The immigration was a result of the death of Skanderbeg, and the collapse of Christian Albania.

Sorry 'bout that.

A seminary was established in the eighteenth century and Pope Benedict XIV composed “Etsi pastoralis” a few years later. The church did not have a hierarchy, the people were subject to Latin bishops.

The two dioceses which are the Italo-Albanian church were erected by the Pope in the twentieth century.