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

[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.

 

[Mickey]

**You can keep busting out the heretic pope comment all day until you turn blue in the face; **

I’m not busting anything out–this stuff is known history. And speaking of turning blue–do think that changing your font color is going to help you?

**you know as well as anyone else that it doesn’t disprove infallibility because he never affirmed it or taught it publically. **

Let us go over this again. He was condemned as a heretic. His letters were burned and called hurtful to the soul. It was declared that he was used by the originator of evil. He was called a confirmer of heresy. It was proclaimed that he strengthened the heresy. For 300 years, every Pope who succeeded him proclaimed the anathematization of Honorius.

**That’s a thorn in your side you can’t pull out. **

The thorn is in your side. And it’s really big!

 

[Mickey]

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?

Exactly!

 

[Mickey]

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

Of course you are, gurn!

 

[josie_L]

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

The filioque is not heretical it was taught by most of the Latin fathers as well as some Eastern (St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Cyril of Alexandria). It is therefore a perfectly legitimate expression of our faith.

 

[AMDGtoo]

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.

He went into detail about the Maronites and yes, I have heard that the topography and their relative isolation helped keep them from being separated from the Catholic Church, but they were united to the Holy See since their founder St. Maron,and so have no counterparts among the Eastern Orthodox. Don’t believe the Italo-Albanians were discussed that much, even though they too have never been separated from Rome so there are no Eastern Orthodox counterparts. (So much for your claim that they were from the Orthodox in the fifteenth century. Oh, I do believe they are considered under the Byzantine Rite which is based on the Rite of St. James of Jerusalem and the churches of Antioch and reformed by Sts Basil and John Chrysostom.)

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

Um…The Melkites began to resume communion with Rome during the time of the Crusades and definititive reunion did not take place until early in the 18th century.

Oh, and although the Melkites are under the Byzantine Rite, the Maronites are of the Antiochene Rite (traced to the Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem and it doesn’t seem that there was a reformation like with the Byzantine–seems a small wonder that there were differences of opinion between the two churches over who was more faithful.)

BTW, you do know that the Church at Antioch was Catholic, and the Church at Jerusalem was Catholic, In fact, the four great mother Churches of the Catholic Church are Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. The fifth, is of course, is Rome.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Forgot, the Syro-Malabar (based in India and I believe trace their origins to St. Thomas) also never broke with Rome. They are officially grouped with the Chaldean Family. (Anyway, it looks like there are three Churches that have never broken with Rome.)

 

[dzheremi]

Forgot, the Syro-Malabar (based in India and I believe trace their origins to St. Thomas) also never broke with Rome. They are officially grouped with the Chaldean Family. (Anyway, it looks like there are three Churches that have never broken with Rome.)

What are you talking about? This church did not formally exist until the 16th century when Portuguese missionaries began setting up synods to try to bring the St. Thomas Christians under their jurisdiction. How can it be that they never broke with Rome when they did not exist at the time of the Great Schism?

 

[AMDGtoo]

What are you talking about? This church did not formally exist until the 16th century when Portuguese missionaries began setting up synods to try to bring the St. Thomas Christians under their jurisdiction. How can it be that they never broke with Rome when they did not exist at the time of the Great Schism?

The Apostle Thomas evangelized where? Answer: India.

The Portuguese only began choosing the leaders in the 16th century.

From CatholicNewssource:

SYRO-MALABAR: The Malabar rite is based in India. Its members are descendants of the Thomas Christians and could be called a brother rite to the Malankarese. The Malabar rite never broke with Rome despite the conflict with the Portuguese in the 16th century. They are generally grouped with the Chaldean family of rites because the Assyrian (later called Chaldean) church provided their bishops until the Portuguese took over that task. Also their liturgy was originally in the Syriac language which the Chaldean church used. Although an ancient rite, it had no single administrator until Pope John Paul II appointed a Major Archbishop in 1992

 

[AMDGtoo]

The Apostle Thomas evangelized where? Answer: India.

The Portuguese only began choosing the leaders in the 16th century.

From CatholicNewssource:

This is the website:

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=1010

 

[Bluegoat]

This is the website:

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=1010

This article doesn’t seem very clear to me, and I am highly suspicious of what it implies. Saying the Indians never broke with Rome wouldn’t mean much if they didn’t interact with Rome in the first place, which is my understanding.

It’s also my understanding that they were not very appreciative of the Romans’ attempts to set up a new governing structure, and even tried to foment rebellion. THey didn’t break away then because attempts to do so were suppressed. Which suggests to me that they didn’t consider themselves to be under Rome in the same way Rome did.

 

[dzheremi]

It’s not very clear, Bluegoat, because it’s hard to say with a straight face that the Syro-Malabar “never broke communion with Rome” without really fudging what that means, as you’ve rightly surmised. They share the same origin as the other (Oriental Orthodox) Christians in the area, and didn’t formally come under Roman jurisdiction until the 16th century. The article on that website is inventing its own history, it seems.

Here’s another hint: The “Chaldean family” would not have existed until the 16th century, either, when Yohannan Sulaqa sought union with Rome in 1553 in order to have his way in a succession dispute that had arisen within the Assyrian church. So how could it be that the Syro-Malabarese were never outside of communion with Rome if the Assyrian faction of the Catholic Church that the article admits chose their bishops prior to the Portuguese domination (“taking over the job” is a nauseating way to put it!) were not even in existence until such a late date? Simple: Before that time, both groups were not in communion with Rome! The Assyrians weren’t (because the Chaldean rite did not exist), and their Syriac brothers in Malabar weren’t either (because the Syro-Malabar rite did not exist). It seems too obvious, doesn’t it? It wasn’t until the Synod of Diamper in 1599 that the Portuguese succeeded in appointing a Latin bishop to govern the St. Thomas Christians, so I guess until then it could have been possible that the Assyrian Catholic Chaldeans had provided their bishops, but even if that is the case (I don’t know), it does not in any way mean that the Syro-Malabar Christians had never been out of communion with Rome, because there is a LOT of time between 1054 and 1553! So even if the Chaldeans somehow had immediate jurisdiction over the Syro-Malabarese, it still wouldn’t make a lie the truth. The truth is what I stated earlier (confirmed also by Eastern Orthodox members, I see, who would have no reason to lie because the Oriental Orthodox are not in communion with them anyway). There are only two Eastern churches for which the claim to have never broken communion with Rome is even possible: The Maronite Church and the Italo-Albanian Church. Any other claim is wishful thinking.

 

[AMDGtoo]

This article doesn’t seem very clear to me

Seems pretty clear to me. We know that the Apostle Thomas, evangelized in India. Therefore, the descendents are “Thomas Christians”. And we also know that the Apostle Thomas is an early Catholic (we can determine that because St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter in 110 A.D. already indicates that the original Christian Church was already well known as the “Catholic Church”.) And we also know that the separation between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church was in 1054 A.D. Now, the article simply notes that the community of Thomas Christians (Syro-Malabar Rite) did not separate from the Catholic Church (and become Eastern Orthodox) as many of the churches that became the Eastern Orthodox in 1054 A.D. did. Seems pretty “straight-forward” to me.

 

[Bluegoat]

Seems pretty clear to me. We know that the Apostle Thomas, evangelized in India. Therefore, the descendents are “Thomas Christians”. And we also know that the Apostle Thomas is an early Catholic (we can determine that because St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter in 110 A.D. already indicates that the original Christian Church was already well known as the “Catholic Church”.) And we also know that the separation between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church was in 1054 A.D. Now, the article simply notes that the community of Thomas Christians (Syro-Malabar Rite) did not separate from the Catholic Church (and become Eastern Orthodox) as many of the churches that became the Eastern Orthodox in 1054 A.D. did. Seems pretty “straight-forward” to me.

Your history is a bit simplistic. You are assuming theat the Early Church is the same thing as what we consider the Catholic Church. Obviously that is the Catholic position, but given that it is really the subject of this discussion, it is begging the question. It is a circular argument.

St Thomas went and began this congregation, and he was certainly part of the Early Church. They seem then to have pretty much been out of contact with the West. To say that this is the same as never having left Rome is more than a stretch, it’s pretty ludicrous. (Even if they considered themselves to have been in some fashion under Rome, it would have been according to the 1st century mode, which was not what I’d call a centralized or authoritative structure. Is there any evidence they did?) And when you consider that they resisted when they did come in contact with Rome, it becomes dishonest.

You can’t just assume that Rome had primacy in this way in the Early Church, when you are trying to prove that Rome has primacy. You have to show it actually existed in this instance, and in the other parts of the EC too.

 

[dzheremi]

With all due respect, that is a very simplistic view of things, ADMGtoo. The usage of the term “Catholic” in earlier centuries of Christianity was not what it is now, thanks to the association in the West of “Catholic” with “Roman” following the beginning of the Reformation. Many of the Eastern churches also call themselves “Catholic”, both formally/officially and informally, though they might not do so outside very specific circumstances if they are not among fellow eastern Christians, because of the need to maintain their distinct identity outside of the Roman communion. This even goes for those not in any major communion. The official name of the Assyrian Church of the East is ܥܕܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܘܫܠܝܚܝܬܐ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܝ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ ܕܐܬܘܪ̈ܝܐ, ‘Ittā Qaddishtā wa-Shlikhāitā Qattoliqi d-Madnĕkhā d-Āturāyē, meaning “Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East”. They are not, in fact, in union with Rome, or Constantinople, or Alexandria, or anybody! (though there are sections originally from that church that are Orthodox or Catholic, under names like “Syriac Orthodox”, “Syrian Catholic”, “Chaldean”, etc.)

This is easy to understand when we look at the literal meaning of “Catholic”. From the Online Etymology Dictionary found here (emphasis mine):

catholic (adj.)
mid-14c., “of the doctrines of the ancient Church,” literally "universally accepted,"

This sense of “found everywhere” (geographically) that Roman Catholics seem to like to use didn’t come about until somewhat later, and only by analogy to the original meaning. “Whole”, “complete” (in the sense of doctrine), or more accurately “believed throughout the whole” is the most common definition I’ve found in use among Orthodox. It seems more meaningful to me, but that’s just me (and them, I guess).

To say that the Syro-Malabar did not separate from the Catholic Church (Rome) and become Eastern Orthodox is both false and true at the same time. They did not separate from Rome because they weren’t in union with Rome to begin with (unless you’re looking wayyy far back to before the Council of Chalcedon), and they did not become Eastern Orthodox because they weren’t that to begin with, either. I’m sure someone more knowledgeable than me will correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware of any numerically significant movement of Eastern Orthodox Christians in India, much less an organized church. The Christians there are of the Oriental Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian) variety, not Eastern (Chalcedonian).

1054 is not the significant date to these people, no matter what their ecclesiastical affiliation is.

 

[josie_L]

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]

And here is an excerpt from then Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict “Called to Communion: Understanding the Church today”:

" A second point follows from what has been said: the bishop is the successor of the apostles, **but only the bishop of Rome is the successor of a particular apostle - of Saint Peter **- and is thus given responsibility for the whole Church. All remaining bishops are successors of the apostles in general; they do not succeed a certain apostle but are members of the college that takes the place of the apostolic college, and this fact makes each single one of them a successor of the apostles. But this means that to be a successor is also tied to participation in the “we” formed by all the successors."

Therefore Pope Benedict does not deny that Peter and as such his successors had/have universal jurisdiction (pre/post schism).

p.s. You might want to read how Pope Benedict views the ecclesiology of the Church (by reading the book mentioned in the above paragraph) before you start taking him out of context.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Micky, the reason I use blue is to offset what I say from the black font of what you say. I don’t think color choice “helps me.” In your heart of hearts do you seriously think I’m trying to win an argument based on font color? Come on man!? What I object to is your icons laughing and mocking and chiding Catholics. I think it’s uncalled-for and it puts you in a tone of disrespect and arrogance which I hope isn’t the real Mick. It’s a form of sarcasm that’s beneath you and the Orthodox.

I’m not busting anything out–this stuff is known history. And speaking of turning blue–do think that changing your font color is going to help you?
I don’t need to go over it again. This is like Groundhog Day. I know he was anathemized. It’s a matter of record. I’m not debating that. You act like I’m trying to re-write history here. I KNOW, I know! Here is the text of the anathema, I know!:
After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign…to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor…them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.’
But I think the point to be made, again, is that Honorius, private personal heretic or not, was guilty of inaction, cowardice, and in that inaction and cowardice he really in effect did a type of harm to the Church. I don’t disagree. And I don’t think most Catholics would disagree with that, Mickey. Popes have been guilty of corruption and stupidity on many occasions, sadly. But just because the council found him an originator of an evil belief or guilty of being “hurtful to the soul” or even having diabolical influences, it still is NOT an ex cathedra statement. How about you and I go over thisagain: when and where did Honorius publically and ex cathedra officially to all in the universal Church proclaim Monothelitism to be good, wholesome, official dogma? Where, Mickey? Please show me. I showed you the anathema. I’m not afraid of the truth. Here it is. Now, you’re trying to use this anathema as a sign that the pope is fallible in the official teaching of faith and morals, contradicting the Catholic Church. Fine. Show me where he taught it officially.

I know about the letters
I know about the anathema
I know the substance of said anathema
I know Honorius failed to teach, personally might have been a heretic, failed
I know popes after Honorius encouraged the anathema, even demanded it stick

What I DON’T see or know is how this was ever an official, universally-binding, ex cathedra dogma. If you can show me that, I’ll sign up for chrismation asap…

Let us go over this again. He was condemned as a heretic. His letters were burned and called hurtful to the soul. It was declared that he was used by the originator of evil. He was called a confirmer of heresy. It was proclaimed that he strengthened the heresy. For 300 years, every Pope who succeeded him proclaimed the anathematization of Honorius.
We all have thorns in our sides, Mick. St. Paul tells us that, right? Seems lately you and I are mutual thorns. I wish it were otherwise. Again, out of charity, let’s stop the eye-rolling, laughing, taunting playground stuff and just have a good conversation. You’re a good guy, I like to think I am, and we both have strong beliefs but the chiding stuff isn’t cool…
The thorn is in your side. And it’s really big!

 

[josie_L]

We disagree with what has become of the papacy after Rome went into schism. There are many other Western innovations—but this is a biggy.

You use that word “innovation” very loosely, in fact, I’m starting to think you’re somewhat of a fundamentalist in your approach to (our) faith. And yet ironically you accept the fact that the Orthodox are allowed to remarry three times and/or are allowed to use artificial contraception and/or are allowed to rebaptize Trinitarian Christians (including Catholics who according to St.Mark of Ephesus stated in the council of Constantinople 1484 should not be rebaptized). Moreover, the jurisdictional problems that afflict Orthodoxy is considered heresy, please read the following:

In the January 2009 issue of “The Word”, publication of The Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, His Eminence Metropolitan Philip Saliba decried the divisions of Eastern Orthodoxy in North America into separate ethnic-national Churches. We have, he lamented, “more than fifteen jurisdictions based on ethnicity contrary to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.” His important article reproduced the talk he gave at the Conference of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius held at St. Vladimir’s Seminary in Scarsdale, NY, on June 4-8, 2008. There he admitted canonical chaos had resulted from the century-old grip of Ethno-phyletism on their Churches. [Ethno-phyletism is the view that each ethnic or national group can have its own independent or autocephalous Church, resulting in multiple and rival hierarchies in the same territory].

Metropolitan Philip declared:

“Our canons clearly state that we cannot have more than one bishop over the same territory, and one metropolitan over the same metropolis. I regret to tell you that we Orthodox are violating this important ecclesiological principle in North America, South America, Europe and Australia. In New York, for example, we have more than ten Orthodox bishops over the same city and the same territory. I can say the same thing about other cities and territories in North America… The same thing has happened in Paris, France. There are six co-existing Orthodox bishops with overlapping ecclesiological jurisdictions. In my opinion and in the opinion of Orthodox canonists, this is ecclesiological ethno-phyletism. This is heretical. How can we condemn ethno-phyletism as a heresy in 1872 and still practice the same thing in the twenty-first century in North America ?”

Metropolitan Philip further observed that:

“Ironically enough, when ethnic ecclesiology began to flourish and prosper in the nineteenth century, it was the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Constantinople itself that condemned ecclesiological ethno-phyletism as a heresy in 1872.”

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/philioca.htm

In other words (paraphrasing here), “take the log out your eye before I take the splinter out of mine”.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great points, Josie. I always find it fascinating how easy it is to get a divorce and remarry in Orthodox circles. Also they allow contraception, like you said, with the approval of a spiritual father, a priest’s counsel. That fascinates me. I know the Catholic Church has too many loosey-goosey priests and bishops willing to do the same but from the tone of Orthodox I hear on this board, one would expect no heretical, sinful stuff like this at all? I notice that Orthodoxy is organized largely upon ethnic lines and they do seem to overlap boundaries like crazy. There is a Coptic Orthodox church in my town, small, and every single solitary member is Middle Eastern. There is an Armenian church about fifteen miles away, 90% Armenian where the 10% is the spouses of Armenians. About one hour away is a Greek Orthodox church and every parishoner’s name ends with -opolis. The Catholic Church in my town has Mexicans, Portuguese, Irish, Filipinos, Italians, Polish, Lahus from Thailand, Anglo muts like me, and other ethnic groups. I feel the Catholic Church has done a better job of being truly universal, catholic, and reaching many ethnic groups.

You use that word “innovation” very loosely, in fact, I’m starting to think you’re somewhat of a fundamentalist in your approach to (our) faith. And yet ironically you accept the fact that the Orthodox are allowed to remarry three times and/or are allowed to use artificial contraception and/or are allowed to rebaptize Trinitarian Christians (including Catholics who according to St.Mark of Ephesus stated in the council of Constantinople 1484 should not be rebaptized). Moreover, the jurisdictional problems that afflict Orthodoxy is considered heresy, please read the following:

In other words (paraphrasing here), “take the log out your eye before I take the splinter out of mine”.

 

[josie_L]

Exactly!

Let’s review what Hesychios said:

Originally Posted by Hesychios 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?

Yes, we should have expected better from Pope Honorius and that is exactly why he was condemned, i.e., he failed to exercise his duties as church leader and guardian of Christian tradition. This is what I and many others have been trying to say for that last several pages or so, but which you fail to see.

Moreover, in the first thousand years of church history the popes did a kick *** job of defeating heresy in the Church, so please lay off the inane comments about “shouldn’t we expect something better” because quite frankly the Church would have fallen under heresy along time ago had the popes in Rome ratified several (heretical) conciliar decisions.