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

[josephdaniel29]

Careful brother with trying to equate numbers as you seem to be trying. I find Mardukm’s perspective right on target, and just because I don’t have the theological acumen that brother Mardukm has, I learn and treasure what he clearly articulates. Perhaps it is others that have the problem!

A generality is just that, a generality. Of course it doesn’t apply to everyone and there are always exceptions.

As a business man, I appreciate the what some Orthodox might feel if Orthodox reunited with Catholics and vice versa, especially when Orthodox make up less that 8% of the Universal Catholic Church as of 2008.

Putting aside the fact that we believe ourselves to be the Catholics Church, not a percentage of it.

Where do you get the 8% figure. What does the Universal Catholic Church consist of by your reckoning?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Wildkit]

A generality is just that, a generality. Of course it doesn’t apply to everyone and there are always exceptions.

I don’t know where you are coming up with a “generality” in your reply, but perhaps I am missing something!

Where do you get the 8% figure. What does the Universal Catholic Church consist of by your reckoning?

My mistake. The figures are from cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=3, (Catholic Near East Welfare Association),which is based off of 2008 data. The Roman and Eastern Catholic Church totals 1,147,000,000 and Eastern Orthodox Church totals 225,229,075, for a total Catholic Church of 1,240,762,075. This does not include schismatic churches from the Roman and Orthodox branches. They would total less than .001% of the combined total. The Orthodox represents 16.4% of the total, not the 8% as stated. Nevertheless, the business perspective remains the same.

I see you are in Florida. The American Orthodox Church had 1,000,000 people in 2008, or .08% of the total Universal Catholic Church. I know some people, yeah, maybe even myself, I guess I want to be with the majority at first blush,…but then I realize, it doesn’t really matter, does it?

May our Lord have mercy on us.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I don’t know where you are coming up with a “generality” in your reply, but perhaps I am missing something!

I thought it was implied. I apologize, I should have been more clear.

I see you are in Florida. The American Orthodox Church had 1,000,000 people in 2008, or .08% of the total Universal Catholic Church. I know some people, yeah, maybe even myself, I guess I want to be with the majority at first blush,…but then I realize, it doesn’t really matter, does it?

May our Lord have mercy on us.

I certainly hope it doesn’t matter as Christians only make up about 25% of the Earth’s population.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Hesychios]

… especially when Orthodox make up less that 8% of the Universal Catholic Church as of 2008.

-]Source please./-] Oh, I see the corrections.

The American Orthodox Church had 1,000,000 people in 2008, or .08% of the total Universal Catholic Church. I know some people, yeah, maybe even myself, I guess I want to be with the majority at first blush,…but then I realize, it doesn’t really matter, does it?

May our Lord have mercy on us.

The American Orthodox church is not the sum of Holy Orthodoxy. Where do you get that

… as Mardukm continues to illustrate, the tradition and canons do not bear that out!

I do not see this at all.

Mardukm, God love him, is a one man show.

 

[Hesychios]

… especially when Orthodox make up less that 8% of the Universal Catholic Church as of 2008.

-]Source please./-] Oh, I see the corrections.

The American Orthodox Church had 1,000,000 people in 2008, or .08% of the total Universal Catholic Church. I know some people, yeah, maybe even myself, I guess I want to be with the majority at first blush,…but then I realize, it doesn’t really matter, does it?

May our Lord have mercy on us.

The American Orthodox church is not the sum of Holy Orthodoxy. Where do you get that

What possible relevance does the size of something in one country alone have when compared to a total size of another thing in the whole world?

… as Mardukm continues to illustrate, the tradition and canons do not bear that out!

I do not see this at all.

Mardukm, God love him, is a one man show. No one thinks like him.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes. And the judgement was his after conciliar agreement. Hmmm, sounds like the seven great Ecumenical Councils. No supreme infallible ruling pontiff there.

If your going to quote me, please quote me from my context, and I will pay you the same respect.

Bravo; we agree; I should hope St.James was head of the council, Jerusalem being his Episcopate, and St. James being the host who’s community was infected with the Gentile/Jewish relation problem. Peter carried the “Infallible” teaching from God, so that after Peter spoke “infallibly” “all fell silent” and obeyed the teaching, to which St. James gave the dietary prescriptions for his community to follow. Peter’s infallibile teaching from heaven became “rock” which remained in all of the Catholic “universal” Church communities, not just Jerusalem. In fact Peter’s infallible teaching from Acts 15… remains today.

The Pope never need be present at a Church council. In fact the first Church council as recorded in the book of Acts, is the first and last Church council where a Pope was ever present. This speaks volumes of the Popes residing in Rocky’s (Peter’s) Chair.

I believe St. James displays the beautiful present status quo of the Roman Catholic Magisterium unity. St. James is at liberty to excercise his own Judgement upon his Jewish communities as did his other brothers in council to their own respective communities, upon falling silent to Peter’s infallible teaching he recieved from heaven.

Peter and the Popes do not dictate a Bishops espiscopacy. Peter is the Rock from which the Bishops unite themselves as one in Christ Jesus. Peter is he who gathers his brethren. Peter and Popes ratify the judgements of the council, should not teach against the apostolic faith. Peter and Popes protect have protected the apostolic faith these past 2000 years with the keys Jesus gave him, with the power to bind and loose.

Reading Acts 10 and then Acts 15 places Peter and the Popes in their status quo today unchanged for 2000 years and counting.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Inffalibility = 1870 doctrine, Pius IX, when speaking ex-cathedra

supremacy = sole head of universal church, all submit to bishop of Rome

In fact, you must also submit to the magisterium of the Roman Pontiff in matters not pertaining to speaking “ex-cathedra”.

LUMEN GENTIUM

Oh, Mickey, You disappoint me:shrug: You gave your view of what you think Supreme Papal infallibility is, not what the Catholic church teaches

Tell you what, let me help you here instead of quoting the official lengthy CCC, or council documents pulled from their context. Let just say the Catholic Church has a King of King and Lord of Lord Jesus Christ as our head. The Lord Jesus Christ as King has placed His own Vicar (Prime Minister) over his Church (see John 21:14-17) to shepherd.

Your definition of supreme infallible pontiff, is like Queen of England’s prime minister ruling over England without his queen. Your interpretation of supreme infallibility is what captains of a ship call “Mutiny.”

I don’t know of any Pope except Peter’s time, when he cried a “mutiny” when Peter told Jesus, know one was going to take him (Jesus) and crucify him, then Jesus told satan “get behind me”. So you see, Jesus Christ never leaves his Popes, not even in a rebuke, he keeps his Pope infallible by removing satan from him.

Your interpretation of Catholic documents are not viewed the same as from the authors obedience and servitude to his King Jesus. This Kingly power and authority excercised by the Pope is not his own, it his given to him by our King himself Jesus Christ. Please read Mt.16:15-19

Peace be with you

 

[Wildkit]

I certainly hope it doesn’t matter as Christians only make up about 25% of the Earth’s population.

According to “The World Christian Encyclopedia”, in 2001 Christianity comprised over 2.1 billion or 33% of the world, (not 25%), we are not there yet! adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Christianity

We also are not one Church yet, but the world is for the taking.

As a graphical depiction, another CA forum member suggested this site one time. I found it interesting.

mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html

-]
Mardukm, God love him, is a one man show. No one thinks like him.

I wish many things, but Mardukm’s thinking and perspective is so encouraging for some. When I review the worldwide data, it is even more encouraging!

 

[Mickey]

Mardukm even though I don’t post here often I’ve been reading your posts here for a number of years now. You spend an awful lot of time correcting people’s conceptions of the role of the papacy, including many Catholics. In fact it seems to me at times you are the only person on this board who understands the papacy the way you do.

Didn’t you know that Markudm is the Vatican publicist?

 

[Mickey]

Putting aside the fact that we believe ourselves to be the Catholics Church, not a percentage of it.

Indeed!

 

[Mickey]

Mardukm, God love him, is a one man show.

And quite entertaining.

 

[Mickey]

Bravo; we agree; I should hope St.James was head of the council

Indeed! And the final judgement was his.

In fact the first Church council as recorded in the book of Acts, is the first and last Church council where a Pope was ever present.

Really!?! There was a Pope at this council?!? Who was it? This is news to me!

Peter and Popes ratify the judgements of the council, should not teach against the apostolic faith. Peter and Popes protect have protected the apostolic faith these past 2000 years with the keys Jesus gave him, with the power to bind and loose.

All the apostles taught under the inspiration of the Holy Spirirt. But history shows us that a Pope can be a condemned heretic. Can you say, “Honorius”?

 

[Mickey]

Oh, Mickey, You disappoint me.

Sorry.

The Lord Jesus Christ as King has placed His own Vicar (Prime Minister) over his Church (see John 21:14-17) to shepherd.

I am still waiting to see your interpretation of these verses. Did you research the Greek words used for “love” in these verses. Do you know why St Peter was grieved after the third time?

So you see, Jesus Christ never leaves his Popes

There were Popes in Christ’s lifetime?!? This is amazing!

Please read Mt.16:15-19

I have many times. And it does not say what you think it is saying.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sorry.

I am still waiting to see your interpretation of these verses. Did you research the Greek words used for “love” in these verses. Do you know why St Peter was grieved after the third time?
There were Popes in Christ’s lifetime?!? This is amazing!

Sorry Mickey, I don’t carry Apostolic authority to interpret scripture. The interpretations provided are 2000 years old, from the apostles oral Tradition and Apostolic successors interpretations. Your interpretations are new and conflict with the Apostolic Traditional teachings.

Iam curious Mickey, are you a western protestant converted into a schismatic Orthodox tradition. Or have you always been in the Orthodox Catholic traditions? I find some of your reasoning being of “unOrthodoxy”.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Gabriel, my friend in Christ, you are right. We don’t have any such authority. And it fascinates me how Orthodox love to quote Honorius over and over again. It’s like a one-trick pony. They love to try to show a man with fallible private opinions somehow having proven himself not to be infallible when he never made monothelite pronouncements ex cathedra? What part of private vs. public isn’t sinking through? It’s like a supreme court justice who might privately be pro-abortion but he rules against abortion rights because he feels it’s unconstitutional to support abortion? Private feelings don’t have to translate to public pronouncements…

I also find it odd that Orthodox point out Honorius, heretic! heretic! heretic! yet what about the many heretical patriarchs and bishops of Orthodoxy? They’ve produced a steady stream of heretics for centuries yet all we hear about is one pope with questionable private opinions condemned by a council after he died and that somehow negates infallibility?

Sorry Mickey, I don’t carry Apostolic authority to interpret scripture. The interpretations provided are 2000 years old, from the apostles oral Tradition and Apostolic successors interpretations. Your interpretations are new and conflict with the Apostolic Traditional teachings.

Iam curious Mickey, are you a western protestant converted into a schismatic Orthodox tradition. Or have you always been in the Orthodox Catholic traditions? I find some of your reasoning being of “unOrthodoxy”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel, my friend in Christ, you are right. We don’t have any such authority. And it fascinates me how Orthodox love to quote Honorius over and over again. It’s like a one-trick pony. They love to try to show a man with fallible private opinions somehow having proven himself not to be infallible when he never made monothelite pronouncements ex cathedra? What part of private vs. public isn’t sinking through? It’s like a supreme court justice who might privately be pro-abortion but he rules against abortion rights because he feels it’s unconstitutional to support abortion? Private feelings don’t have to translate to public pronouncements…

I also find it odd that Orthodox point out Honorius, heretic! heretic! heretic! yet what about the many heretical patriarchs and bishops of Orthodoxy? They’ve produced a steady stream of heretics for centuries yet all we hear about is one pope with questionable private opinions condemned by a council after he died and that somehow negates infallibility?

Greetings gurney; Thank you, but? by me being unable to authortative publicly intepret sacred scripture is not my doing, this is ordained by God and his Magisterium, Iam just a sheep listening for my shepherds voice.

I believe you just summarized the whole thread by revealing the differences between what is private and what is public. It is True; the most persistent and damaging Heresy’s and heretics came from the Eastern Church and sometimes with the support from the Eastern Emperor. But no one has taken into account what Honorius, when dealing with Heretics and Heresy’s from the Eastern Church while residing in the West.

No one has taken into account the respect and authority looked to from the Pope Honorius to defeat an Eastern Hersey as Honorius had previously done in the Western Church. The respect for the Popes authority was such , that even in death, the heretics haunted his Authority (from the East) of acceptance by not publicly denouncing the heresy, thus the future councils and Popes finished defeating the Eastern Church heresy by condemning all those who may have supported the hersey and or relaxed from condemning the heresy. In order to keep the Heresy from using the dead Honorius inaction, as an excuse of Universal authority to continue to infect the Eastern Catholic Church.

What most commentators have missed is that they are looking to the authority of future Popes and councils who defeated this Eastern Heresy, even at the expense of a dead passive Pope who did not publicly denounce this heresy. But then again, with a powerful Emperor in support of the heresy, one can understand maybe why Honorius may have hesitated or be killed? Honorius has displayed a champion spirit against Eastern heretics trying to invade the Western Catholic Church. Honorius did not display the same zeal against the Eastern heretics and heresy’s supported by their Eastern Emperor who had a military support.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That goes without saying, brother!

Greetings gurney; Thank you, but? by me being unable to authortative publicly intepret sacred scripture is not my doing, this is ordained by God and his Magisterium, Iam just a sheep listening for my shepherds voice.
I believe you just summarized the whole thread by revealing the differences between what is private and what is public. It is True; the most persistent and damaging Heresy’s and heretics came from the Eastern Church and sometimes with the support from the Eastern Emperor. But no one has taken into account what Honorius, when dealing with Heretics and Heresy’s from the Eastern Church while residing in the West.

No one has taken into account the respect and authority looked to from the Pope Honorius to defeat an Eastern Hersey as Honorius had previously done in the Western Church. The respect for the Popes authority was such , that even in death, the heretics haunted his Authority (from the East) of acceptance by not publicly denouncing the heresy, thus the future councils and Popes finished defeating the Eastern Church heresy by condemning all those who may have supported the hersey and or relaxed from condemning the heresy. In order to keep the Heresy from using the dead Honorius inaction, as an excuse of Universal authority to continue to infect the Eastern Catholic Church.

What most commentators have missed is that they are looking to the authority of future Popes and councils who defeated this Eastern Heresy, even at the expense of a dead passive Pope who did not publicly denounce this heresy. But then again, with a powerful Emperor in support of the heresy, one can understand maybe why Honorius may have hesitated or be killed? Honorius has displayed a champion spirit against Eastern heretics trying to invade the Western Catholic Church. Honorius did not display the same zeal against the Eastern heretics and heresy’s supported by their Eastern Emperor who had a military support.

 

[Hesychios]

Iam curious Mickey, are you a western protestant converted into a schismatic Orthodox tradition. Or have you always been in the Orthodox Catholic traditions? I find some of your reasoning being of “unOrthodoxy”.

My brother Mickey and I are both former Byzantine Catholics, and I agree with him.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

"We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."

It’s obvious in the council’s condemnation of Honorius that it was a censure and big blast against him because of his inaction, not his outward teachings of any heresy. So for the Orthodox to say, “he was condemned as a heretic,” some context would be nice. Is he condemned as a heretic or anathemized for sitting idly by and keeping silence. Is an infallible ex cathedra statement on trial or cowardice? No doctrine of the Catholic Church has ever said popes are more than human and incapable of cowardice like the rest of us poor shlameels…

 

[excaliber]

I’m going to divine liturgy today so I can observe with my own eyes.

Let’s see what the Orthodox community is like…what they believe…how active they are in the outside community. Let’s see for myself if this Orthodox community is realy Catholic.

Any prayers are appreciated.

I will post anything that is note worthy.