B
bobzills
Guest
Which only proves the point that the Orthodox would not accept infallibility, since it came much later than Florence and the Orthodox consider this to be a novelty.
- Status
B
bobzills
Guest
Where is the misunderstanding I have of Catholic teaching and why would this misunderstanding of mine have any relevance at all to a reunion between RC and EO?
C
CapIV
Guest
For example, saying that Catholics have a “legalistic” view of salvation or that we have “Dracula Masses” isn’t true at all. If Ecumenical councils were populated by people arguing over absurdities and semantics like “incorrect making the sign of the cross”, then there is no hope of unity forever.
And no, do you know anything about the council of Florence at all? Very little time was spent on Papal Primacy because there was almost no disagreement! Not because the beliefs were incompatible so they just gave up! Furthermore, many of the more conservative Orthodox simply don’t understand Catholic teaching enough to realize that there is little to no difference at all regarding the Doctrine of the Trinity. But these are usually the Orthodox who think of the very idea of ecumenism as a pan-heresy. And as Metropolitan Kallistos called them; “hopeless”.
And by the way, Papal infallibility has been used since at least 1500 years ago. The nature of the Pope had not changed, it was simply more correctly defined.
B
bobzills
Guest
I beleive that you are wrong on Dracula type Masses, since there is or was a video on youtube of a Catholic Halloween Mass with Eucharistic servers dressed up in Satanic outfits. And I was talking with an Orthodox student who is enrolled in a Catholic university in the USA and he said he was totally amazed at what is being taught and preached on Catholic campuses. According to this Orthodox student, at the Catholic Masses, the priest regularly announces that it is the custom for everyone to come up to receive Holy Communion. This differs rather sharply from his practice of fasting on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays and Sunday morning before receiving Holy Communion in an Orthodox Church. Further, as an Eastern Orthodox, you have to be prepared morally and spirtually, so that usually a confession is advisable, unlike at the Catholic Masses at this Catholic college. And fuirther, he said that they have what are called “coming out” Masses, which are geared for the homosexuals and they have what are called “coming out” retreats. Whatever those are, I don;t know.
And in the Catholic classroon theology classes, what is taugth is barely recognisable as Christianity. So although he thought before attending this Catholic college, that there might have been some chance of reunion, after this experience, he is dead set against it.
M
manualman
Guest
As far as I know, the theological objection stems from their misunderstanding that the catholics were implying that the Holy Spirit had a dual origin of some kind like human do with two parents. They backpedal furiously if you push further and ask if this means that they believe that the Father and Son are entirely separate.
Both catholics and orthodox believe that God is three persons in one God. Though distinct persons, they are one in being. (God from God, Light from Light… you know!) A catholic pope added the filioque to address the error made in some circles unduly emphasized the separation between Father and Son.
B
bobzills
Guest
However, the Orthodox do not accept the insertion of the filioque in the creed.
J
jimmy
Guest
No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that they would accept it as a western practice. It is rediculous that the west expects the east to follow the western practice. The east will not accept it in this way. They are not going to accept the western tradition as valid if it will destroy their own tradition. They must recognize that the situation is not identical in all areas of the Church and it never has been. If you look at the Oriental Orthodox you will see that historically those Churches have different approaches to things than the Byzantines or the Latins. In many instances these differences can exist simultaneously.
The west is not going to change their tradition. That is just the way it is. But I think the EO would be willing to accept the western use of statues as a specifically western thing.
J
jimmy
Guest
So the meaning of the Spirit is only a utilitarian one in order to effect unity between the Father and the Son? The east will reject that every time you bring it up and they will tear it apart.
It seems to me that the west is the one that back pedals when defending the filioque. the ‘que’ at the end of the word implies a parallel between Father and Son. It does not in any way imply a single procession from the Father as the east affirms. What is implied is dual procession. If you read the councils of II Lyons and Florence though then you will see an elaboration that says that it is a single spiration.
But the EO do not speak of procession through the Son on an essential level though as the west does. They only speak of it on an energetic level(the east makes a distinction between essence and energy of God) which basically means that the manifestation of the Spirit is through the Son but not His personal existence.
B
bobzills
Guest
If so, then why does the Pope refuse to allow Eastern Catholic priests in the USA to marry, just as the Eastern Orthodox are allowed to?
J
jimmy
Guest
Papal primacy is not universal jurisdiction.
No they don’t.
They do not believe in purgatory. The Tollhouses are a theologoumen.
Their definition of original sin is different and therefore their understanding of Mary as sinless is different. Further they do not believe it in a dogmatic fashion. An EO Christian is free to profess that Mary was a sinner.
The early Church used leavened bread. To expect the east to change is to say that the west has developed into a greater church than that of the apostles and first century Christians. To say that would be illogical and I think the west would deny it.
The early Church in all areas celebrated the three sacraments of initiation as one event. It was the west that later seperated them in the middle ages. The purpose of the sacrament of baptism is for the reception of the Eucharist. The west has lost cite of this fact.
It was actually always from midnight until you recieved until P. Pius XII changed it to 3 hours and then P. Paul VI changed it to 1 hour.
J
jimmy
Guest
I think the east is going to be going back to its tradition soon. They have already started ordaining married men a little in certain churches.
The main problem is the authority of the pope and the filioque. I think that if these two things were solved the EO would accept communion with the west even though the other issues are not solved.
B
bobzills
Guest
however, you said:“It is rediculous that the west expects the east to follow the western practice,” and is that not what is in effect now concerning the western rule of celibacy in Eastern Catholic Churches?
J
jimmy
Guest
Yes, that is a problem. But it is not specifically because there is a problem with the western practice of celibacy. It is a problem of the authority of Rome and the idea that the east is looked down upon.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
How about if the church declares/recognizes that all the councils since Constantinople IV were actually just local councils (since the eastern bishops didn’t attend). Then since those councils weren’t infallible (just local councils) we can roll the clock back on all the purgatory & papal supremacy & marian dogmas & indulgences and start fresh with the Orthodox.
J
jimmy
Guest
I don’t know if that is meant to be a sarcastic statement or something or whether that is a serious suggestion. My answer is that it simply will not happen. The west will not simply declare its councils to be not binding. It believes that the western councils are infallible and consequently can not be rejected or taken back. Consequently I think that ecumenism has a degree of evangelism underlying it in the western Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Church also. Someone is going to have to change it seems.
I think that if the west wants these discussions to go anywhere they are going to have to accept a more local and pneumatological ecclesiology. This overly centralized understanding of the Church will not help with ecumenism. It will only keep us seperate. What they must recognize is that the Greeks, the Syriacs, the Coptics and every other tradition is guided by the Spirit. We can not simply say the Spirit guides the pope and the bishops as well when they are in communion(submission) with the pope. Communion must be interpreted less along the lines of submission to the pope and more along the lines of the action of the Spirit in all places. Maybe the pope still has a special place within the Church but it can not be qhat it is now.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
It wasn’t meant to be sarcastic at all.
The thing is, if we declare that a council has to really be ecumenical to be infallible, it means that all those infallible statements about infallibility are no longer infallible. So we wouldn’t be violating infallibility
B
bobzills
Guest
I think actually, something like this will be done, because anyway, the Eastern Orthodox only recognise the first seven Councils, since they were not present at the others. Except for the Council of Florence, which in the end, was not ratified in the East.
J
jimmy
Guest
The west might say the councils of the west aren’t ecumenical but that is only a reunderstanding of the word ecumenical. I don’t think they are willing to limit infallibility in this way. I think they are intending to say that the councils are still infallible but they are not ecumenical in that not all bishops have affirmed them.It wasn’t meant to be sarcastic at all.
The thing is, if we declare that a council has to really be ecumenical to be infallible, it means that all those infallible statements about infallibility are no longer infallible. So we wouldn’t be violating infallibility
But at the same time I see how this seems to be contradictory. It seems to imply that it is not binding on all. The simple approval of a few bishops doesn’t change the status of a council. To say that it is not ecumenical also implies that it is not universally binding.
B
bobzills
Guest
The argument would be that the councils were not truly ecumenical since the Eastern Orthodox bishops were not present.
C
Chellow
Guest
Why is every one so down on infallibility? Was not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John infallible? I don’t recall Christ telling a Council in Matthew 16:19 that their word is bound on Earth and heaven only Peter. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples (Council) are given the power of binding.
- Status