Question for Catholics and Orthodox: would you follow your Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What was that? Like 6 posts for this to devolve into an argument over papal infallibility? I think this must be some sort of record.

Folks, the question was not what would your Church, Catholic or Orthodox, have to give up, but would you accept it if they did.

Perhaps it should have been phrased like this:

For Catholics - would you accept reunification with the Orthodox Church IF the Catholic Church renounced such things as papal infallibility, etc.?
For Orthodox - would you accept reunification with the Catholic Church IF the Orthodox Church accepted such things as papal infallibility, etc.?

It’s amazing how quickly everyone starts spouting off, They will never accept it until… blah, blah, blah.

Just answer, would you follow your church IF?

For me, the answer is yes.
 
MHalsey said:
Just answer, would you follow your church IF?
Click to expand...
It is even simpler than that. Ask yourself: “When the Churches were one, was there a doctrine of supremacy/infallibility”?

Answer: No

Then to be reunited, this innovation should rescinded. 👍
 
Mickey said:
It is even simpler than that. Ask yourself: “When the Churches were one, was there a doctrine of supremecy/infallibility”?

Answer: No

Then to be reunited, this innovation should rescinded. 👍
Click to expand...
Sorry, not going there. But at least I know how you voted.
 
Mickey said:
No. You would have to have the way back machine for that. 😃
Click to expand...
No, mister smiley. I’m not going to argue the many facets of the schism. That wasn’t the point of the thread.

The question from the original post was: “would you accept all the terms of their reunification? Even if it meant some sort of change in custom, liturgy, defining more deeply a doctrine or dogma etc?”

Your responses did not answer the question. But I can figure how you voted, or would vote if haven’t already.
 
Oy, this thread took the direction I thought it would…

I’m so glad it’s up to the leaders of our Churches and not us that decide the outcome. I’m not too terribly surprised at the reaction of some of the Orthodox 😦

I asked if no matter the outcome the reunification (should there be on in God’s will), would accept ALL the terms and be a part of the reunited Church or would you allow your pride to continue to consume you?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
 
Harpazo said:
I’m not too terribly surprised at the reaction of some of the Orthodox
Click to expand...
Nor should you be. The Orthodox do not compromise any aspect of the true faith.

This sort of hypothetical question cannot bear much fruit.
 
Harpazo said:
Should the two Churches reunite, would you put your complete trust in Christ and follow your Church and the reunited Church?

Here’s an article on the Ravenna Talks. They discuss how talks are getting places, but reunification is still a while off, and in God’s time.

For Catholics and Orthodox, for the reunited Church, would you accept all the terms of their reunification? Even if it meant some sort of change in custom, liturgy, defining more deeply a doctrine or dogma etc? I personally would accept it all without exception, because if I didn’t, I personally would feel like I were betraying Christ, Our Lord.:eek:

What say the rest of you and why?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
Click to expand...

A definite “Maybe” 😃​

I would accept any change at all - on condition that it did not obscure or imply obscuring of Christ. Everything else is negotiable, but not that, ever. As to why:

I think the old ways are culs-de-sac, & that if there is to be reunion it may need to be by being more “Protestant” - specifically, by being more “Evangelical” in certain ways; because Evangelical Protestantism emphasises the freeness of grace better than the CC or Orthodoxy seem to.

We are going to need to deny self - including our corporate ecclesiastical egos - & be detached from what we cannot surrender: the more important a thing is, the more vital the need for detachment from it. Ego caused all these problems, so more ego cannot heal them.

“More of the same” will AFAICS leave us stuck in the same old rut discussing the same old issues which no party to the talks will or can concede. There’s an impasse - & it needs to be broken. If things continue as they are, it never will be. The only solution: a change of attitude, metanoia, repentance. But that cannot come from us: because the lack of it is what our shared problem consists in. So God alone can give it, of His free grace. If that is so, negotiating without radical change of heart - which is what metanoia is - can be of no more value than a game of chess.

That’s why we cannot put our hopes in anything other than God - not in self, church things, Churches, human good-will, or any other thing in all creation: as St.Paul did not say in Romans 8.31-39 - for our ecumenical problem is a sort of blasphemous parody of what he speaks of in that passage.

I hope that “why” is not too wordy. :o
 
Alexius said:
I am being 100% honest when I say that I truly wish the dogma of Papal Infallibility had never been declared. A simple “Church Infallibility” would have been more than adaquate.
Click to expand...
The Vatican Council I raised to level of doctrine this teaching even though only several hundred of thousand bishops voted for it, and many objected strenuously. The council was held in Vatican so that Pii 9 could control all bishops to get his will. You must read history of this council. Infallibility was such an unknown concept in early Christianity there is no even such word in Slavonic, Russian for such idea. Catolic catechisms in Ireland before 1870 were saying idea of Papal infallibility was made up by Protestants to mock church.

If you read about this council and Pii 9 Bishop of Rome you will understand why Orthodox neither believe in Papal infallibility nor in a powerful ecclesiastic dictator who could force such an issue to be voted to his liking.

This is not what Church always believed - no one ever heard of infallibility - it is a made up Latin concept to glorificate Bishop of Rome more than he needs. Such teaching makes discussion of episcopal primacy impossible.
 
The question is flawed. I haven’t voted.

If some Orthodox were to unite with RC without RC renouncing their errors and heresies condemned by Ecumenical Councils, those Orthodox wouldn’t be the Church.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
We are going to need to deny self - including our corporate ecclesiastical egos - & be detached from what we cannot surrender: the more important a thing is, the more vital the need for detachment from it. Ego caused all these problems, so more ego cannot heal them.

“More of the same” will AFAICS leave us stuck in the same old rut discussing the same old issues which no party to the talks will or can concede. There’s an impasse - & it needs to be broken. If things continue as they are, it never will be. The only solution: a change of attitude, metanoia, repentance. But that cannot come from us: because the lack of it is what our shared problem consists in. So God alone can give it, of His free grace. If that is so, negotiating without radical change of heart - which is what metanoia is - can be of no more value than a game of chess.

That’s why we cannot put our hopes in anything other than God - not in self, church things, Churches, human good-will, or any other thing in all creation: as St.Paul did not say in Romans 8.31-39 - for our ecumenical problem is a sort of blasphemous parody of what he speaks of in that passage.

I hope that “why” is not too wordy. :o
Click to expand...
You bring up very important points!

Many of us seem to believe that we can attain Christian unity exclusively through our own human efforts, but this notion is completely false.

Pope John Paul II of thrice-blessed memory, said in his Apostolic Letter, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, that Christian unity:

“cannot be the fruit of human efforts alone, vital though they are. Unity, after all, is a gift of the Holy Spirit.”
 
Harpazo said:
Should the two Churches reunite, would you put your complete trust in Christ and follow your Church and the reunited Church?

Here’s an article on the Ravenna Talks. They discuss how talks are getting places, but reunification is still a while off, and in God’s time.

For Catholics and Orthodox, for the reunited Church, would you accept all the terms of their reunification? Even if it meant some sort of change in custom, liturgy, defining more deeply a doctrine or dogma etc? I personally would accept it all without exception, because if I didn’t, I personally would feel like I were betraying Christ, Our Lord.:eek:

What say the rest of you and why?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. Because I know nothing as compared to the wisdom of the Church.
 
Charlie_Zeaiter said:
But therein lies the problem; Why would I trust you? No offence. But for every piece of evidence the Orthodox have, I’ve seen counter evidence from the Catholics. Go figure.

Going to the pre-1870 Catholic Church will not end our faith; It may be just denying history.
Click to expand...
And, in fact, Pope John Paul II of blessed memory (may his memory live forever) said that we would expect to use the understanding or Peterine Primacy as it existed in the first millennium.
 
Harpazo said:
Oy, this thread took the direction I thought it would…

I’m so glad it’s up to the leaders of our Churches and not us that decide the outcome. I’m not too terribly surprised at the reaction of some of the Orthodox 😦

I asked if no matter the outcome the reunification (should there be on in God’s will), would accept ALL the terms and be a part of the reunited Church or would you allow your pride to continue to consume you?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
Click to expand...
The way you frame your question is pretty offensive. The Orthodox Christians who would resist a reunion with Rome over infallibility are not doing it out of pride. You are trying cram a Catholic reaction into an Orthodox mind. We are not as similiar as some would think.

For you the answer is simple. You will accept anything the pope commands regarding reunion.Obeying the pope is part of being catholic. If the pope tells you to do something even if you think it would be bad for the Church you must do it anyway. Papal authority is the most important aspect in catholicism because it trumps individual conscience. Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to misrepresent your faith. But catholics believe as a matter of faith that obedience to the pope is necessary for salvation and if there was a scenario in which a person genuinely disagreed with the pope in an important matter of faith then that person must ignore his own conscience and obey the pope because it is an impossibility for the pope to lead the church away from the truth (or so catholics believe).

A perfect example is Archbishop Lefebvre. No matter what you’re opinion is as to whether or not he should have disobeyed JPII, no reasonable person can say that he did what he did out of pride. Lefebvre saw the church headed down the wrong path in the wake of Vatican II. And when he had to make a choice between being excommunicated or allowing the traditional Roman Liturgy die, he sacrificed his membership in the Church in order to save the Church’s liturgical tradition. And beacuse he illicitly consecrated those 4 bishops, the Vatican created the FSSP and eventually liberated the traditional Roman liturgy 20 years later. There would be no FSSP, motu proprio, or any Traditional masses in the RCC today if not for him. But, nevertheless, he is excommunicated and burning in Hell according to the letter of Rome’s law.

Contrast the image of Lefebvre to the Orthodox Mark of Ephesus. Mark and the orthodox christians united to him stood up to the Ecumenical Patriarch and the “orthodox” heirarchs that pushed for false union with Rome and Mark was not excommunicated but rather canonized as a pillar of Orthodoxy. Obedience to the bishops takes a back seat to believing the same faith as was always believed and handed to us by the Fathers. And papal supremacy (and especially infallibility) were not a part of the Faith in Mark’s time so the orthodox had a duty to resist the EP and union with Rome.

Pride doesn’t figure into the equation at all. Since 1870, it is part of your faith to hold and defend papal infallibility or you will cease to be Catholic. It is part of the orthodox faith to reject every novelty that was not received through the Tradition on the Apostolic Fathers including papal infallibility or we cease to be Orthodox.

I am very sorry. The schism is permanent.
 
Volodymyr said:
The Vatican Council I raised to level of doctrine this teaching even though only several hundred of thousand bishops voted for it, and many objected strenuously. The council was held in Vatican so that Pii 9 could control all bishops to get his will. You must read history of this council. Infallibility was such an unknown concept in early Christianity there is no even such word in Slavonic, Russian for such idea. Catolic catechisms in Ireland before 1870 were saying idea of Papal infallibility was made up by Protestants to mock church.

If you read about this council and Pii 9 Bishop of Rome you will understand why Orthodox neither believe in Papal infallibility nor in a powerful ecclesiastic dictator who could force such an issue to be voted to his liking.

This is not what Church always believed - no one ever heard of infallibility - it is a made up Latin concept to glorificate Bishop of Rome more than he needs. Such teaching makes discussion of episcopal primacy impossible.
Click to expand...
Yes my brother. It was an in depth study of Church history and Vatican Council I that ultimately convinced me of the error of the dogma of infallibility. 😦
 
VARC said:
Contrast the image of Lefebvre to the Orthodox Mark of Ephesus. Mark and the orthodox christians united to him stood up to the Ecumenical Patriarch and the “orthodox” heirarchs that pushed for false union with Rome and Mark was not excommunicated but rather canonized as a pillar of Orthodoxy. Obedience to the bishops takes a back seat to believing the same faith as was always believed and handed to us by the Fathers. And papal supremacy (and especially infallibility) were not a part of the Faith in Mark’s time so the orthodox had a duty to resist the EP and union with Rome.
Click to expand...
St Mark, pray for us.
img138.imageshack.us/img138/2221/st20markga0.th.jpg
VARC said:
Pride doesn’t figure into the equation at all. Since 1870, it is part of your faith to hold and defend papal infallibility or you will cease to be Catholic. It is part of the orthodox faith to reject every novelty that was not received through the Tradition on the Apostolic Fathers including papal infallibility or we cease to be Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Well said my brother in Christ.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif
 
Mickey said:
It is even simpler than that. Ask yourself: “When the Churches were one, was there a doctrine of supremacy/infallibility”?

Answer: No

Then to be reunited, this innovation should rescinded. 👍
Click to expand...
Sorry, havent read the whole thread. I only made it as far as the above post so forgive me if Mickey’s post has already been replied to. Hello there Mickey by the way. Kinda new here but nevertheless some very interesting posts.

To answer Mickey’s question: No, there was not a doctrine formed that spelled out papal infallibility. But, is this the right question? First, one has to understand how the Catholic Church understands herself. The church is alive. An ever living, breathing communtiy devoted to the Lord. Just as you and me are living, we go through stages of development, the church also views herself in the same light. Now, as a Catholic I believe in the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome as they are defined at the present. Do I believe the Pope has always been recognized in this same light? No, to believe such would be to deny history. Now, I certainly wouldnt say that I agree with the EO on many of their historical analysis’ and their conclusions but to say that papal primacy has not undergone development, and some serious growing pains at that, would be to avoid historical evidence. Of course this doesnt pose any threat to the Catholic perspective. The truth is always among us but we develop as a church and sometimes we dont fully come to terms with such truths until a much later time. Correct me if Im wrong but the main reason the EO will have a hard time recognizing such developments is because after the 7th Ecumenical Council they dont believe much of anything as far as doctrine goes. Which is why there are problems such as contraception and a host of other situations that faithful Easterners may come into contact with everyday.
 
JJR1453 said:
The truth is always among us but we develop as a church and sometimes we dont fully come to terms with such truths until a much later time. Correct me if Im wrong but the main reason the EO will have a hard time recognizing such developments is because after the 7th Ecumenical Council they dont believe much of anything as far as doctrine goes. Which is why there are problems such as contraception and a host of other situations that faithful Easterners may come into contact with everyday.
Click to expand...
If you care to debate contraception versus NFP or other such issues, you are free to start a thread.

The undivided Church recognized seven Ecumenical Councils. Orthodoxy believes these councils were Holy Spirit breathed.

A common RC accusation against Holy Orthodoxy is stagnancy because they do not recognize councils beyond the seven. I challenge you to attend a retreat at an Orthodox monastery, visit an Orthodox Church, talk to an Orthodox priest, enjoy fellowship with an Orthodox community—and tell me if you think they are stagnant.

After the schism, Rome went on to invent new doctrines on their own–doctrines which were not known to the undivided Church. Purgatory, IC, papal infallibility/supremacy were introduced to the Roman Catholic Church. New words were invented to describe the mystery of the Real Presence (transubstantiation). The creed was altered. Definitions were rampant in an effort to defend themselves against the reformers.

Rome explains these changes by claimimg “doctrinal development”. They claim that seeds need to grow. Why were these “seeds” not recognized by the undivided Church? Why did Rome hold councils with only the Western portion of the Apostolic Church to develop these “new doctrines”?

Call me conservative, but I am pleased with what was revealed to the undivided Church. Call me stagnant, but my faith is enriched daily and grows by leaps and bounds.

Yes. If only we had the faith of a mustard seed.

Sadly, heresies can begin as seemingly harmless seeds also. But we do not want these seeds to develop and grow.

Please do not be offended by my post. You are my brother in Christ. I have often said that I will always cherish my Latin/Byzantine Catholic roots. They were instrumental in my journey to Holy Orthodoxy.

Peace be unto you. Welcome to the forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top