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

[wisdomseeker]

The world looks to Barrak Obama too.

no, they dont. obama is no Spiritual leader.

 

[josie_L]

As I said, some bishops apply the concept of oikonomia on the issue of rebaptism.

Oikonomia makes little sense as it is practiced in the Orthodox Church (especially with regard to Catholics), i.e., the early Church made sure to uniformly accept Nestorians through penance, and quatrodecimans through chrismation, and Marcionites through rebaptism (and yet Catholics who have similar baptisms/faith are, depending upon which diocese they go, rebaptized, and/or chrismated and/or accepted by penance)??? Moreover, even Mark of Ephesus in the Council of Constantinople (can’t remember the exact date but the other patriarchs were included) stated that (Latin) Catholics should not be rebaptized.

If you want to bring up questions of unity of faith we could have a field day with the west. There are Rahnerians, Balthsarians, those who follow the views of Ratzinger. There are universalists like Balthasar. There are those who subscribe to the anonymous Christian like Karl Rahner. There are dominicans who are strongly Thomist. There are Francscans who lean toward a more Franciscan theology in line with Bonventure and Francis. There are hundreds of monastic orders. Where is the unity? Everyone is following their own idea of what the truth is.

You are confusing the actual teachings of the Church, i.e., what is pronounced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with those who have some leeway with respect to how to approach those teachings/dogmas. Moreover, individuals who are espousing something other than what the Church teaches (in the Catechism) are in error.

The difference is that the issues don’t divide eastern Christians as it does the west. Whether someone believes in the Toll houses is irrelevant. There are Catholics in the west who believe that pure Capitalism is the best representation of the Christian faith. Are you going to count that as a division within Catholicism? The east has no desire to define everything (like the west), so whether some believe in Toll houses or not is meaningless.

Again, you missed my point in that the things I mentioned are crucial to the faith and moral underpinnings of the Church, i.e., rebaptism which goes against the Nicene creed, i.e., “we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, or artificial conception that was already pronounced immoral but yet accepted by some Orthodox dioceses (also divorce and remarriage is an issue).

Edit: In some areas (Russia I believe) toll houses are viewed as dogma, moreover, if the East has no desire to define everything then why are they so adamant to tell us that we are wrong (if they themselves cannot agree to this or that)? .

 

[jimmy]

how about the others?

What others? That is why I brought up the history of schism and heresy. Considering the papal claims, it would seem that if there was a dispute the safe bet would be to agree with Rome. Otherwise you are a heretic/schismatic and outside the church. But that is not how it was. The Alexandrians and the Antiochenes didn’t view Rome in this way. Otherwise there wouldn’t have been any break with the Nestorians and the monophysites. The same goes for the Byzantines with the break of 1054. Rome wasn’t a monarch according to the east.

 

[jimmy]

Oikonomia makes little sense as it is practiced in the Orthodox Church when the early Church made sure to uniformly accept Nestorians through penance, and quatrodecimans through chrismation, and Marcionites through rebaptism??? Moreover, even Mark of Ephesus in the Council of Constantinople (can’t remember the exact date but the other patriarchs were included) stated that (Latin) Catholics should not be rebaptized.

The quartodecimens never were outside the Church. They were never condemned by anyone. They existed till the fourth century in the east and they were in perfect union with the Church.

I can’t speak of the Nestorians because I haven’t seen any references to how the Nestorians were recieved.

I would like to see the actual words of Mark of Ephesus.

You are confusing the actual teachings of the Church, i.e., what is pronounced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with those who have some leeway with respect to how to approach those teachings/dogmas. Moreover, individuals who are espousing something other than what the Church teaches (in the Catechism) are in error.

The fact is that these were orthodox Catholics. They are divided.

Again, you missed my point in that the things I mentioned are crucial to the faith and moral underpinnings of the Church, i.e., rebaptism which goes against the Nicene creed, i.e., “we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, or artificial conception that was already pronounced immoral but yet accepted by some Orthodox dioceses (also divorce and remarriage is an issue).

Edit: In some areas (Russia I believe) toll houses are viewed as dogma, moreover, if the East has no desire to define everything then why are they so adamant to tell us that we are wrong (if they themselves cannot agree to this or that)? .

In reallity it isn’t a question of re-baptism, but whether the western Christians have truely been baptized according to the east. They don’t accept the view of baptism that the west does that as long as it is done in the Trinitarian form, it doesn’t matter who does it. They believe that it is through the Church that Grace comes, so the minister of baptism must be an orthodox priest. Divorce and remarriage has been an issue since the first millenium.

What do you mean why are they so adament on telling you you are wrong? On what issues? On papal supremacy? Rome is the one that insists on turning papal supremacy into a dogma. On the filioque? Rome is the one that brought that to the front of the debate by inserting it in the creed and insisting that everyone accept it.

 

[excaliber]

Let’s define what Papal infalibility is, so we are all on the same page.

I think what is being said is that the bishop of rome has the athority to order a bishop in egypt or anywhere else to do something like change the creed to “and the son”…with out first through councils recognized by the whole church.

Also the bishop of rome has the ability to teach the faith with the direct guidence of God, so that it is impossible for this particular bishop to teach an error because he and he alone is the direct channel of communication God is using to teach his church.

So if the pope says St. Mary was born without sin…or never died…or is co redeamer, then it has the exact same athority as if Jesus Christ himself said it.

Do I have it right?
Because if I do…there should be strong proof from God…in the bible or from an angel or some how God would have to DIRECTLY state this…because ONLY GOD can give such athority…so if God never said anything about infalibility, it can’t exist.

 

[wisdomseeker]

What others? That is why I brought up the history of schism and heresy. Considering the papal claims, it would seem that if there was a dispute the safe bet would be to agree with Rome. Otherwise you are a heretic/schismatic and outside the church. But that is not how it was. The Alexandrians and the Antiochenes didn’t view Rome in this way. Otherwise there wouldn’t have been any break with the Nestorians and the monophysites. The same goes for the Byzantines with the break of 1054. Rome wasn’t a monarch according to the east.

was St Augustine a father in the east?

he attests to the Church in Rome.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Let’s define what Papal infalibility is, so we are all on the same page.

I think what is being said is that the bishop of rome has the athority to order a bishop in egypt or anywhere else to do something like change the creed to “and the son”…with out first through councils recognized by the whole church.

Also the bishop of rome has the ability to teach the faith with the direct guidence of God, so that it is impossible for this particular bishop to teach an error because he and he alone is the direct channel of communication God is using to teach his church.

So if the pope says St. Mary was born without sin…or never died…or is co redeamer, then it has the exact same athority as if Jesus Christ himself said it.

Do I have it right?
Because if I do…there should be strong proof from God…in the bible or from an angel or some how God would have to DIRECTLY state this…because ONLY GOD can give such athority…so if God never said anything about infalibility, it can’t exist.

you say this in way as if the pope is some kind of tyrant who willfully want to teach something against God’s will. it is not so. the Pope and the bishops in communion with him cannot teach error because the doctrines of the Church is protected from error by the HS according to the promise of Christ.

you mention the Son. i dont know exactly how it was inserted in the Creed but teh Church accepted and that is fine with me.

many others dont like the title Mother of God which came from the East and the Church set as dogma. i dont have a problem with it. i love it. it caused a big uproar at the time. but the Church held her ground on it. now because the CC declared her Immaculate conception, you have a problem with it?

authority of the Pope is not a new thing. it has been emphasized lately due to so many trying to destroy his authority to create a whole new religion of relativism. that no one holds the Truth. there is no more Truth, it is whatever i believe that makes it true.

“****The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?” Pope Sixtus III, [regn A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch (A.D. 433).

 

[excaliber]

This is my issue with quotes, first of all its not that I don’t like what they say and are avoiding them…but is there anyone on this forum that dose not know that Orthodox can also quote fathers?

Also please listen to my example…Knowone can take money out of your bank account unless you directly give them athority. It dosent matter WHO you are, Pope Benedict canot take money out of your account even if he shows the bank quotes from people who think you wanted him to have money from your account. Only you can give the athority and untill you do it dosent matter who gets quoted or anything.

Is it not the same with infalibility…until God gives it, knowone has it.
Dosent matter if you quote a saint because only God has access to that ability.
The people you quote can’t give it…dosent matter who they are. A verse that talks about keys…rock…feed my sheep…peter seeing Christ first…peter being the first to speak…Jesus praying for peters faith…NONE OF THAT GRANTS A PERSON ACCESS TO GODS INFALIBILITY. Until God grants it…it dosent matter if peter was the best fisherman out of all the apostles, that dosent automaticly some how mean that we can jump to the conclusion that peter was infalibile.

Unless you can show me where God and not our human reasoning granted the bishop of rome infalibility and unlimited athority in The Church?

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is my issue with quotes, first of all its not that I don’t like what they say and are avoiding them…but is there anyone on this forum that dose not know that Orthodox can also quote fathers?

Also please listen to my example…Knowone can take money out of your bank account unless you directly give them athority. It dosent matter WHO you are, Pope Benedict canot take money out of your account even if he shows the bank quotes from people who think you wanted him to have money from your account. Only you can give the athority and untill you do it dosent matter who gets quoted or anything.

Is it not the same with infalibility…until God gives it, knowone has it.
Dosent matter if you quote a saint because only God has access to that ability.
The people you quote can’t give it…dosent matter who they are. A verse that talks about keys…rock…feed my sheep…peter seeing Christ first…peter being the first to speak…Jesus praying for peters faith…NONE OF THAT GRANTS A PERSON ACCESS TO GODS INFALIBILITY. Until God grants it…it dosent matter if peter was the best fisherman out of all the apostles, that dosent automaticly some how mean that we can jump to the conclusion that peter was infalibile.

Unless you can show me where God and not our human reasoning granted the bishop of rome infalibility and unlimited athority in The Church?

again i have asked what is it that want from the Bible to prove infallibility in the Church.

the promise that Jesus made to the Apostles: the Spirit will come and teach you all Truth." is not enough for you? this promise is not just to the Apostles themselves but for the Church which would continue to this day. the Pillar and Bullwark of the Truth. do you know what this means?

i dont think those being quoted in here gave the Pope any authority or infallibility, they only testify to what how things were done in the past and what they believed then and what is believed today. there is no change. what they proclaimed then, it is proclaimed today. and until you can show that was not then. it is what it is. nothing will change despite of you unbelief.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is my issue with quotes, first of all its not that I don’t like what they say and are avoiding them…but is there anyone on this forum that dose not know that Orthodox can also quote fathers?

Also please listen to my example…Knowone can take money out of your bank account unless you directly give them athority. It dosent matter WHO you are, Pope Benedict canot take money out of your account even if he shows the bank quotes from people who think you wanted him to have money from your account. Only you can give the athority and untill you do it dosent matter who gets quoted or anything.

Is it not the same with infalibility…until God gives it, knowone has it.
Dosent matter if you quote a saint because only God has access to that ability.
The people you quote can’t give it…dosent matter who they are. A verse that talks about keys…rock…feed my sheep…peter seeing Christ first…peter being the first to speak…Jesus praying for peters faith…NONE OF THAT GRANTS A PERSON ACCESS TO GODS INFALIBILITY. Until God grants it…it dosent matter if peter was the best fisherman out of all the apostles, that dosent automaticly some how mean that we can jump to the conclusion that peter was infalibile.

Unless you can show me where God and not our human reasoning granted the bishop of rome infalibility and unlimited athority in The Church?

please quote the Fathers testifying for any Church other than Rome is having jursdiciton over all the Churches.

 

[excaliber]

you say this in way as if the pope is some kind of tyrant who willfully want to teach something against God’s will. it is not so. the Pope and the bishops in communion with him cannot teach error because the doctrines of the Church is protected from error by the HS according to the promise of Christ.

you mention the Son. i dont know exactly how it was inserted in the Creed but teh Church accepted and that is fine with me.

many others dont like the title Mother of God which came from the East and the Church set as dogma. i dont have a problem with it. i love it. it caused a big uproar at the time. but the Church held her ground on it. now because the CC declared her Immaculate conception, you have a problem with it?

authority of the Pope is not a new thing. it has been emphasized lately due to so many trying to destroy his authority to create a whole new religion of relativism. that no one holds the Truth. there is no more Truth, it is whatever i believe that makes it true.

“****The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?” Pope Sixtus III, [regn A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch (A.D. 433).

I did not call Roman Bishops tyrants, and I did not say that if the Pope of Rome dose not have infalibility it automaticly means everyone is there own Pope.

The Church CANOT FALL INTO ERROR…this is DIRECTLY stated by God himself in scripture.
That means (to me) that the bishops of The whole Church get called into council to discuss major issues. And Because God PROMISED to lead the Church, that council will always be guided by God…otherwise the church could fall into error.

I don’t see where it means any one man is infalible.
I think both eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and even the Assyrian church would agree.

 

[excaliber]

please quote the Fathers testifying for any Church other than Rome is having jursdiciton over all the Churches.

I don’t think any one church has athority over all other churches.
Why would a bishop in one area need athority over another bishop half way across the world?

The head of the woman is man…the head of man is Christ…no infalible man in between Christ and man.

Why can’t God direct multiple churches at the same time? Why dose he have to direct one man and have him direct all other bishops.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I don’t think any one church has athority over all other churches.
Why would a bishop in one area need athority over another bishop half way across the world?

The head of the woman is man…the head of man is Christ…no infalible man in between Christ and man.

Why can’t God direct multiple churches at the same time? Why dose he have to direct one man and have him direct all other bishops.

do you want to do it your way or God’s way? i dont question God.

what churches are you talking about? Jesus found one Church and not many. if people dont agree wiht the Church and leave they have separated themselves from the Church Jesus found.

if the Apostles could teach infallible then their successors also can teach infallible today. and the only way to know which Church it is the True the Church is know where the Chair of St Peter is. if you believe everything the Apostles tought, you have to believe that their successors also teach infallible today. Jesus has abandoned His Church. He said: I will be with you until the end of times." are we abandoned by God today? has he not promised to not leave his people orphan.
if you are to tell me that no one teaches the Truth today, then i have to tell you that Jesus cannot be reliabe. for He has provided for the people then but has forsaken us today.

Catechetical Discourses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): “And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is–for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord–nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all.” On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which already appears in his form of the baptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks: (sect. 23) "Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other."

 

[wisdomseeker]

I don’t think any one church has athority over all other churches.
Why would a bishop in one area need athority over another bishop half way across the world?

The head of the woman is man…the head of man is Christ…no infalible man in between Christ and man.

Why can’t God direct multiple churches at the same time? Why dose he have to direct one man and have him direct all other bishops.

you are looking at the Church as if the Church are many different churches not so. it is One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. not many. do you see? that is what the Creed says, One Church and not many independent churches. that is what protestants also claims. this is heretical.

 

[excaliber]

you are looking at the Church as if the Church are many different churches not so. it is One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. not many. do you see? that is what the Creed says, One Church and not many independent churches. that is what protestants also claims. this is heretical.

I’m talking about Eastern Orthodox…not protestants.

Orthodox are apostolic, and yet don’t have any one man with infalibility.
Its not a question or Catholic or protestant…its a question of Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m talking about Eastern Orthodox…not protestants.

Orthodox are apostolic, and yet don’t have any one man with infalibility.
Its not a question or Catholic or protestant…its a question of Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

the same. Jesus found One Church and not many independent churches. it is our desire that they unite again for the sake of the world. this separation is not a good thing for the world. Jesus says: I Pray they may be One as the Father and I are One, that the world may see and believe." do you see how this is important to our Lord?

EO are not united since they separated themselves from the CC. there are some EO who desires union with the CC but have face dificulties. some have advocate for union. but as not as simple as it should. the EO became national Churches, they became under the authority of the the countries they are in. for example the Orthodox church in russian have much dificulty in communicate with the CC because the government dont allow it. the CC in Russian has dificulty in converting people because the government and the Orthodox church wont allow it.

**“But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Epistle 10 (A.D 445). **

 

[excaliber]

you are looking at the Church as if the Church are many different churches not so. it is One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. not many. do you see? that is what the Creed says, One Church and not many independent churches. that is what protestants also claims. this is heretical.

Just because one man leads the Roman Catholic church, do you automaticly think they are more one holy and catholic then orthodoxy?

I live in america and I know how latin churches are…you walk into one and its like the baptist church…walk into another its like an anglican church with women doing things they shouldn’t. Dose this not defeat the purpose of one man over the whole church to make it look unified? Can Orthodox be any less unified?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So you would expect me to fill pages of quotations just so you could establish that you like the context? Is it really necessary to do so anyway when what they say is obvious as a heart attack within the quote itself? For example, if I read that Hitler says the following:

***"The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness ***
Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer
and this:

***“We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.”***A History of National Socialism by Konrad Heiden

What do you glean from these two quotes? What are Hitler’s thoughts on Catholicism and Islam? You’re a smart guy. What do I see here? A guy who isn’t a fan of organized religion, especially Christianity and Islam. He has turned his national socialism into a religion. Pretty clear cut. Do I need to supply the whole book or pages and pages?

The bottom line is that I hear many Orthodox and a few Protestants complain, “I hate it when people put quotes on here!” yada yada but I have to say from a Catholic point of view I’m tired of hearing “You’re not showing the whole context!” That seems to be the new cheesy way out of dealing with a quote you don’t like. Go back and look at the quotations I posted. Honestly, Andrew. Do they seem to have a grey area? Do they need much more context?

I’d like you to show me the context that I’m keeping out that misleads?

If you’re going to quote something, I would expect that you would have read that entire Father’s work and not just their particular quote. If not, then you’re cherry picking and as I already said, Muslims, Jews and Atheists that want to discredit Christianity do the same thing.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[excaliber]

the same. Jesus found One Church and not many independent churches. it is our desire that they unite again for the sake of the world. this separation is not a good thing for the world. Jesus says: I Pray they may be One as the Father and I are One, that the world may see and believe." do you see how this is important to our Lord?

EO are not united since they separated themselves from the CC. there are some EO who desires union with the CC but have face dificulties. some have advocate for union. but as not as simple as it should. the EO became national Churches, they became under the authority of the the countries they are in. for example the Orthodox church in russian have much dificulty in communicate with the CC because the government dont allow it. the CC in Russian has dificulty in converting people because the government and the Orthodox church wont allow it.

You keep saying independent. They simply have there bishops functioning as bishops, with no super bishop.

Are they independent of Christ…no

Are they independant of the faith…no

Are they independant of the sacraments…no

Are they independant of the ORIGINAL creed or councils…no

Are they independant of the idea that one man guides the whole church…yes.

Yes Churches are persecuted by governments, just like Churches in the middle east are persecuted by muslims…but what dose this have to do with anything…are you saying churches are persecuted because they don’t believe in infalibility?

**“But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Epistle 10 (A.D 445). **

 

[wisdomseeker]

Just because one man leads the Roman Catholic church, do you automaticly think they are more one holy and catholic then orthodoxy?

I live in america and I know how latin churches are…you walk into one and its like the baptist church…walk into another its like an anglican church with women doing things they shouldn’t. Dose this not defeat the purpose of one man over the whole church to make it look unified? Can Orthodox be any less unified?

i totally understand what you are saying. after VII something bad happened. disobedience sprout everywhere. what can i say? i will stay the course. i dont intend to do what the Apostles did when they abandoned Jesus when they saw Him being humiliated throught the streets of Jerusalem. we would probably have done just the same as they did. i also remember when St Paul told the soldiers to stay in teh boat when the boat looked like was going to sink. they stay and all lived.

just because things look ugly right now it does not mean Jesus has abandoned His Church. our Faith is being tested right now. pope Paul VI declared after the Council that the smoke of satan had entered the Church. he was right.

here are some reading about the EO and the CC,.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2728&CFID=23759719&CFTOKEN=11285592