Orthodoxy, Papacy

[BrianH]

erred in what respect, to cause one to apostacize ?

No. I was going off the word erred.

 

[Wesley7]

So if a person believes Rome erred, should they still be a Christian? What do Catholics think?

I think different people have different conclusions about Catholciism and the Catholic Church.

 

[BrianH]

I think different people have different conclusions about Catholciism and the Catholic Church.

Absolutely. But its a line of reasoning I am going to examine.

 

[Shiranui117]

Without specifics I can’t comment. There are continuing demands in this thread that Catholics prove the Church is the same today as it was in the first century. The answer to that is in the parable of the mustard seed (Mt. 13:31-2) which the Lord used to describe the kingdom of God. The large bush bears no resemblance to the tiny seed so I don’t know what it is we’re supposed to prove or why we’re asked to prove it.

Huh. Odd. I’ve never thought about it like that. Thanks for the perspective.

I use “Catholic” as a proper noun to identify the one Church the Lord came to build, which proper noun has been in use for that purpose since the second century.

Of course. And thank you for FINALLY agreeing that early Eastern and Western Christians were all Catholics as opposed to Orthodox. Ergo, you now agree the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church. Good man!!

So your argument IS about names! Busted! :bluelite:

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

This will be my last post–at least for a while. I get to a point on this forum where I am getting annoyed and I’m annoying everyone else. As many of you know, I’ve done this a number of times before, and each time I hint that I may not be back at all. Same here. I’m going to try to stay away from this forum, certainly until I have learned to manage my time better and accomplish more of the things I really want to do. Going round and round on this isn’t good for anyone.

God bless,

Edwin

I’d like to make a couple of points to you on your way out the door. Not to get into your family business, but you posted it, I think it’s dangerous to put your destiny at the mercy of your wife’s secular-feminist politics. Saying you’re Anglican while calling yourself Episcopalian is a clear contradiction. Though the ABC seems bend on following Shori into perdition, there’s a gulf between conservative Anglicans and the Episcopal heresy.

Also, IMO, if you spent half your time in prayer that you spent here, you’d probably have the answer to your dilemma by now. Hanging around a heresy because you’re viscerally attached to it, when you know it’s a heresy, is a rejection of the truth. Or, The Truth. You should go to Mass – Catholic one week, Orthodox the next – and pray until the Holy Spirit directs you. God bless you.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

And likewise, if you claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, you also claim to have solved the Mystery.

No, I claim to believe what the Catholic Church teaches. I’m Catholic precisely because I believe what she teaches. Do you?

Heck, the Orthodox (well, at least the resources I’ve seen, IDK much about Orthodoxy as a whole; Nine_Two or Joe can clarify further on this one) even refrain from using the term “transubstantiation” when referring to how the Real Presence comes upon the gifts of bread and wine, precisely BECAUSE it slaps a dictionary definition on one of God’s greatest Mysteries.

You need to re-think that one. ‘Transubstantiation’ is a word that means a change from one substance to another. It describes WHAT happens at the consecration, not how. HOW it happens is the mystery. The same thing happens in the Orthodox Church at the consecration. It’s irrelevant that they don’t use the word. It’s still transubstantiation. They probably don’t use it because Catholics do.

I won’t get too heavily on the debate of filioque,

Good idea.

Yes. They share the same essence, they are of the same essence, whatever. Moreover, the second verse does not prove that the Son is a SOURCE of the Holy Spirit, just that the Holy Spirit can proceed (GO FORTH, not ORIGINATE) from the Son. I believe you’ve heard the torch metaphor and the spring and river metaphor, as well as possibly the lightbulb and glass window metaphor before?

Who said the Son is the source of the Spirit? Your first instinct is the right one.

 

[josephdaniel29]

You should go to Mass – Catholic one week, Orthodox the next – and pray until the Holy Spirit directs you. God bless you.

That’s the best advice I’ve heard in a while and it applies to anyone is his position. I personally don’t think it’s possible to make a decision on this by study and logic alone. Yes we have to give intellectual assent to certain things but genuine faith is not primarily a set of beliefs, it’s a life to be lived and experienced in communion with God and each other.

The only way to experience that is to “get your hands dirty” so to speak and start doing it. It’s through the very act of doing, going to church, praying the prayers, kissing the icons and serving others that we gain the Grace necessary to grow in Christ. Try both Churches, get involved in the life of the Church, and God will give you the Grace to know and follow His will.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Nicea325]

I’m not sure what you mean. I repeat: where did the West protest this? What schism did it cause with the West? The addition clearly represented the Faith of the whole Church. The addition of the Filioque did not–as the reaction of the Orthodox to this day witnesses.

So you can justify avoiding the issues by claiming I have a chip. Well, I’ll let others judge whether that’s reasonable.

I just meant that they don’t use it. And in fact I was speaking of the Eastern Catholic churches (sorry for not being clearer, though I thought it was clear in context), who did take it out after being forced to use it at one time. I’ve seen Eastern Catholic service books with the Filioque whited out (at St. Cyril and Methodius in Cary, NC). So it didn’t happen that long ago.

And my point, again, is that if your Church is really unified there should be one faith. Catholics criticize the Orthodox for having different disciplines on matters such as contraception and the rebaptism of non-Orthodox (and I agree that these are problems), but then propose to have the Creed recited in two different versions. That’s not unity, just because Rome approves of it.

Edwin

Again, it was a modification of the previous one,why do you insist a protest had to occur for the change? Sorry,but I am not the only who expressed the same sentiments about your dispositions toward the RCC.

Contarini, Christ Church is always unified, the problem is people who are not unified. The Church has already been sanctified by Christ,it cannot err in its doctrines,but people do all the time.

 

[Nine_Two]

Not ''shares." They are One in being. They are of the same essence. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jn. 1:1. To the procession of the Spirit, the Lord breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (citation omitted.) The procession of the Spirit to the Apostles is from the Son.

Yes, they are one essence, which is what I meant my “shares”. I’m also perfectly aware the Holy Spirit comes through the son. Even if we accept that that is what the filioque means, and what it has always meant, it doesn’t justify changing the creed. As someone already pointed out, the Creed is not meant to be a summation of all doctrine, this is clearly shown by the lack of mention to the Eucharist, a very central point of doctrine.

Do you mean Scripture is never conclusive? Does ALL your doctrine come from tradition?

Scripture is tradition. If Scripture is not tradition, but something else, then clearly the first followers of Christ could not be Catholics, as they did not have scripture as it exists today.

That’s funny. Don’t worry about it. As long as it’s relevant and not boring, post all you want. So far you’re not boring.

Actually I posted that because it’s a pet peeve of mine, one which I seem to have been the only one to violate. I’m fine with a few posts in a row, but as many as I did was excessive.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

That’s the best advice I’ve heard in a while and it applies to anyone is his position. I personally don’t think it’s possible to make a decision on this by study and logic alone. Yes we have to give intellectual assent to certain things but genuine faith is not primarily a set of beliefs, it’s a life to be lived and experienced in communion with God and each other.

The only way to experience that is to “get your hands dirty” so to speak and start doing it. It’s through the very act of doing, going to church, praying the prayers, kissing the icons and serving others that we gain the Grace necessary to grow in Christ. Try both Churches, get involved in the life of the Church, and God will give you the Grace to know and follow His will.

In Christ
Joe

AMEN!!

 

[Shiranui117]

No, I claim to believe what the Catholic Church teaches. I’m Catholic precisely because I believe what she teaches. Do you?

I’m Catholic because I felt God calling me to be such and I was predisposed to be Catholic, even being born into an entirely Protestant family, and one that somewhat distrusts the Catholic Church at that. I believe what she teaches as well, even if I question certain things (as I believe you can tell )

You need to re-think that one. ‘Transubstantiation’ is a word that means a change from one substance to another. It describes WHAT happens at the consecration, not how. HOW it happens is the mystery. The same thing happens in the Orthodox Church at the consecration. It’s irrelevant that they don’t use the word. It’s still transubstantiation. They probably don’t use it because Catholics do.

Point taken, but even then, it seems that some Orthodox (perhaps it’s just the polemicists?) strongly dislike putting a label on something like the consecration. Though, thinking about it, perhaps calling it the consecration alone is enough? Your thoughts?

And, IDK if it’s for the exact reason you stated, but from what I’ve seen, the Orthodox are much more mystic than the Catholics; we like to define things. Not in and of itself a bad thing, but we just can’t get too caught up in definitions in trying to define God and how He works; just because He works within the parameters we’ve been able to find, doesn’t mean He has to follow them. Not accusing anyone of being too legalistic here.

Who said the Son is the source of the Spirit? Your first instinct is the right one.

Sorry, I seem to have misinterpreted one of your posts, or someone’s.

 

[Palamas]

I think the issue here is the Papacy… if the Papacy is true, then the Orthodox are schismatic… if the Papacy is not true, then it’s the Catholics who are schismatic. There are some doctrinal differences as well… for example, the Orthodox don’t believe in original sin. There’s also differences regarding the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory… the EO bishops accepted all this at the Council of Florence, but it seems the laity did not…

I thought Pope John Paul II was talking about the Eastern Catholic churches, not the Eastern Orthodox?

God bless

The Orthodox Church does believe in original sin, however what we believe is different from the Roman Catholic church. Correct me if I am wrong but the RC believe all humans share in the guilt of the original sin of Adam and Eve. The EO however do not believe share any guilt but only suffer the consequences of the original sin, such as death and disease, etc.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Point taken, but even then, it seems that some Orthodox (perhaps it’s just the polemicists?) strongly dislike putting a label on something like the consecration. Though, thinking about it, perhaps calling it the consecration alone is enough? Your thoughts?

Transubstantiation is a dogma of the Catholic Church defined after the schism. There is no reason for the Orthodox to use that term. That being said I personally don’t see anything theologically wrong with the concept and I doubt you would find many Orthodox who would argue that the idea is incorrect. Of all the documents I’ve read from Orthodox sources I can’t remember seeing Transubstantiation cited as error.

That being said the Orthodox Church doesn’t see the need to try to define the undefinable. The Holy Mysteries are precisely what they say they are, a mystery. The problem is to the Western mind a mystery is something to be investigated and solved. For the Orthodox Church a mystery is the very presence of God, it’s not something to be solved. In fact it can’t be solved because it’s beyond our human ability understand, it can only be entered into and experienced.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Shiranui117]

The Orthodox Church does believe in original sin, however what we believe is different from the Roman Catholic church. Correct me if I am wrong but the RC believe all humans share in the guilt of the original sin of Adam and Eve. The EO however do not believe share any guilt but only suffer the consequences of the original sin, such as death and disease, etc.

It’s my understanding that we aren’t guilty of Adam and Eve’s sin. Perhaps a better explanation would be that we inherit the debt of their sin, and that debt is only payable by Christ, and it was paid when Christ gave His life for us. We each are born in a state of debt to God, and baptism wipes away that debt. However, each of us also has a personal debt incurred by our own sins. From what I’ve learned on these forums, “culpa” is the Latin word that means “guilt”, though the actual word used to describe original sin is “reus” or “reatus” which is more along the lines of the English “debt.” I couldn’t tell you what document that’s from, however. But nonetheless, we are all born without sanctifying grace, AKA union with God, due to us being born corrupt, and since God can’t have anything to do with corruption, since He is perfect. That description of original sin as understood by Roman teaching doesn’t really seem to contradict the EO understanding of original sin as a corrupt human nature that is prone to sin, disease and death; in fact, they seem to compliment each other quite well.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation is one of the few doctrines which Catholics hold to that Orthodox don’t which even most Orthodox, aware of its history, would accept as having been proclaimed legitimately.

 

[josie_L]

You’re right that this discussion has reached an impasse. I will note one final thought though (feel free to respond as you wish): Protestants use the same quote-mining procedure to “prove” that the Fathers supported Sola Scriptura.

So basically, you’ve decided to push aside what I’ve quoted concerning the fathers on the premise that I’ve taken the quotes out of context but without actually telling me how I’ve done this?

Similarly, Fathers who found themselves on Rome’s side in various controversies (mostly the Christological controversies of the East) made statements that sounded like affirmations of Rome’s infallibility.

No, the fathers relied on scripture and tradition to come to the conclusions that they did or did you not understand the point of my post, i.e., Matthew 16:18 was referenced in all the quotes I provided as a basis for the petrine primacy.

And yet when Rome reached an accommodation with the Monothelites, St. Maximus kept on fighting.

If you can call inaction an accomodation, either way, it was Pope St. Agatho who in his letter which defined the faith ended Monothelism, i.e., the sixth ecumenical council accepted the faith as defined by Pope St. Agatho:

The letter of the council to Pope Leo, asking, after the traditional manner, for confirmation of its Acts, while including again the name of Honorius among the condemned Monothelites, lay a remarkable stress on the magisterial office of the Roman Church, as, in general, the documents of the Sixth General Council favour strongly the inerrancy of the See of Peter. “The Council”, says Dom Chapman, “accepts the letter in which the Pope defined the faith. It deposes those who refused to accept it. It asks [the pope] to confirm its decisions. The Bishops and Emperor declare that they have seen the letter to contain the doctrine of the Fathers. Agatho speaks with the voice of Peter himself; from Rome the law had gone forth as out of Sion; Peter had kept the faith unaltered.”

newadvent.org/cathen/04310a.htm

The general practice of the Fathers does not support your argument, even though you can come up with isolated quotes that do.

Again, what practices (and beliefs) are you referring to, and why have you consigned the quotes I’ve given as isolated?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ferde,

First of all let me THANK YOU for being intellectually honest enough to differentiate between the conservative Anglicans and the Episcopalians. You’re part of a huge minority of Catholics in here that do not smear Anglicans and join them at the hip with Episcopalians as being “all the same thing.” I appreciate you pointing that out, even if you do disagree with Anglican spirituality being a Catholic.

As far as Edwin goes, he’s a very intelligent poster. I often have not agreed with his conclusions but he doesn’t arrive at his positions lightly or just from a liberal perspective. He is highly-educated and believes what he says. He is not shifting with the winds from my observations. He has been Episcopalian for some time I thought?

And as far as prayer goes, maybe ALL of us, myself included, could take the time away from being in here to pray. We all could do with more prayer and humility. Forums can bring out the best and worst in us. Heck, I just heckled a Dodger fan in another thread in here LOL…bring up the Dodgers and that’s like atheism to me. Hard to ignore LOL

God bless you

I’d like to make a couple of points to you on your way out the door. Not to get into your family business, but you posted it, I think it’s dangerous to put your destiny at the mercy of your wife’s secular-feminist politics. Saying you’re Anglican while calling yourself Episcopalian is a clear contradiction. Though the ABC seems bend on following Shori into perdition, there’s a gulf between conservative Anglicans and the Episcopal heresy.

Also, IMO, if you spent half your time in prayer that you spent here, you’d probably have the answer to your dilemma by now. Hanging around a heresy because you’re viscerally attached to it, when you know it’s a heresy, is a rejection of the truth. Or, The Truth. You should go to Mass – Catholic one week, Orthodox the next – and pray until the Holy Spirit directs you. God bless you.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Transubstantiation is a dogma of the Catholic Church defined after the schism.

I think it’s important here to separate the word from what the word describes. The word ‘transubstantiation’ is not the dogma. The dogma is the change in the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ by the words of the Lord and the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Council of Trent, to which you refer, says this: “Because Christ our Redeemer said it was truly His body that He was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ, our Lord…” (Emphasis added.) The dogma was not defined by the Council, it was reiterated.

If I’m not mistaken, that’s what the Orthodox believe. If so, they believe “there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread in to the substance of the Body of Christ, our Lord…” That’s ‘transubstantiation.’ Whether you call it that or not is irrelevant to what it is. The word merely affirms that a fundamental change takes place. Nothing more.

That being said the Orthodox Church doesn’t see the need to try to define the undefinable.

The use of the word does not attempt to define the undefinable. That would be an attempt to state how the change in substance occurs and the Catholic Church makes no such attempt. ‘Transubstantiation’ simply states what happens and it happens in the Orthodox Church in the same way it happens in the Catholic Church; bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by His words and the action of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ferde,

First of all let me THANK YOU for being intellectually honest enough to differentiate between the conservative Anglicans and the Episcopalians. You’re part of a huge minority of Catholics in here that do not smear Anglicans and join them at the hip with Episcopalians as being “all the same thing.” I appreciate you pointing that out, even if you do disagree with Anglican spirituality being a Catholic.

Thank you for your message. It doesn’t take much intellectual honesty to discern the difference between those who follow Christ and those who don’t.

We should note, there are many faithful, conservative Episcopalians who are in dismay at what has happened to them. It’s heartbreaking to see their faith torn up by the roots and the churches where they and their families have worshipped for many years taken away from them by heretics who worship at the feet of homosexuality and secular feminism. Satan is ever at work in the entire family of God.

As for Edwin, I agree he’s a very intelligent – and honest – man.

As for you, anyone who worships at the feet of Tim Lincecum is automatically suspect. I will pray for you, too.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think it’s important here to separate the word from what the word describes. The word ‘transubstantiation’ is not the dogma. The dogma is the change in the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ by the words of the Lord and the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Council of Trent, to which you refer, says this: “Because Christ our Redeemer said it was truly His body that He was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ, our Lord…” (Emphasis added.) The dogma was not defined by the Council, it was reiterated.

If I’m not mistaken, that’s what the Orthodox believe. If so, they believe “there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread in to the substance of the Body of Christ, our Lord…” That’s ‘transubstantiation.’ Whether you call it that or not is irrelevant to what it is. The word merely affirms that a fundamental change takes place. Nothing more.

The use of the word does not attempt to define the undefinable. That would be an attempt to state how the change in substance occurs and the Catholic Church makes no such attempt. ‘Transubstantiation’ simply states what happens and it happens in the Orthodox Church in the same way it happens in the Catholic Church; bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by His words and the action of the Holy Spirit.

I am not so sure that it isn’t doing this. If we only look to say “substance” in an everyday kind of way, you might be right. But it isn’t an everyday word, it is technical language and means something quite specific. I t seems to me that it is exactly saying how the change happens - the substance - the essential form and matter - change - but the accidents do not. What is that except saying how the change happens? It is surly more than saying simply that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood.

I think transubstantiation is a nice theory, and I like Aristotle and I think his categories have a lot going for them. But I think perhaps too much emphasis is put on transubstantiation by the CC. It becomes a road block, and can even make people think they know more than they do, or make them think they can trap God in their definitions. But it doesn’t have any real advantages that outweigh these things.