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

[JJR1453]

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.

No offense taken Brother! And thank you for the warm welcome!

Also, I have no doubt that an Orthodox retreat at a monastery would be fruitful! Actually there is one near to the town in which I live; I plan on one day having a visit.

I encourage you to have a look at: Papl Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present, by Klaus Schatz

I love the way this book handles the history, although there are some small details that I do disagrre with. Overall, most of the information I agreed with as the book is by and large, historical. Go figure an interesting read for a history major.

I will agree that some of the Apologetics frrm the Catholic side twist history to prove their point, so goes the same with the Orthodox. However I find it undoubtable that Rome was looked to, and ECF writings affirm this, when real doctrine needed to be made, especially when much of the time the East was either in, or looming on the verge of heresy. This is where we find Rome, and it happpens to be a historical fact that Rome never formally

 

[JJR1453]

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.

No offense taken Brother! And thank you for the warm welcome!

Also, I have no doubt that an Orthodox retreat at a monastery would be fruitful! Actually there is one near to the town in which I live; I plan on one day having a visit.

I encourage you to have a look at: Papl Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present, by Klaus Schatz

I love the way this book handles the history, although there are some small details that I do disagrre with. Overall, most of the information I agreed with as the book is by and large, historical. Go figure an interesting read for a history major.

I will agree that some of the Apologetics frrm the Catholic side twist history to prove their point, so goes the same with the Orthodox. However I find it undoubtable that Rome was looked to, and ECF writings affirm this, when real doctrine needed to be made, especially when much of the time the East was either in, or looming on the verge of heresy. Enter Rome and her duty…
However, this is not the appropriate thread. Maybe one of us can start one.

Blessings in Christ,

JJR

 

[Mickey]

However I find it undoubtable that Rome was looked to, and ECF writings affirm this, when real doctrine needed to be made

It was always a council. Most of the time the pope was not in attendance–he would send legates. Nevertheless, it was not the poe who promulgated doctrine.

especially when much of the time the East was either in, or looming on the verge of heresy

At one time, about 3/4 of all bishops were Arian. But heresies in the undivided Church were always squashed. True Orthodoxy always prevailed. This is a testimony of how the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church.

 

[JJR1453]

Sorry! My first post I must have accidently hit the submit button. My reply in its entirety is the latter post. Sorry, newbie mistake

 

[Mickey]

Hey JJ!

Did you ever read, “You Are Peter” by Olivier Clement?

Another excellent book!

 

[JJR1453]

It was always a council. Most of the time the pope was not in attendance–he would send legates. Nevertheless, it was not the poe who promulgated doctrine.
At one time, about 3/4 of all bishops were Arian. But heresies in the undivided Church were always squashed. True Orthodoxy always prevailed. This is a testimony of how the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church.

Very true, and who is the foundation? What See was always the defender of orthodoxy even when other held Patriarchs/Emperors that were fervent in their heresy?

 

[Mickey]

Very true, and who is the foundation?

Jesus Christ.

What See was always the defender of orthodoxy even when other held Patriarchs/Emperors that were fervent in their heresy?

All successors of the Apostles who had not apostasized.

 

[josephdaniel29]

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.

That was exactly what I was thinking and you said it far more eloquently than I could ever hope to. The idea that we the Church, clergy and laity together are to preserve the deposit of faith whole unchanged is ingrained into the Orthodox heart. It is not possible, as an earlier poster suggested for a council to “infallibly declare” anything that is contrary to the deposit of faith.

As is stated in the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs…

Moreover, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could then have introduced novelties amongst us, because the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves, who desire their religious worship to be ever unchanged and of the same kind as that of their fathers

If a council of Orthodox bishops were to proceed to union without agreement on doctrinal issues they would not be speaking for the Church. If that were to happen you could expect the same reception the Council of Florence received, it would be rejected by the faithful.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Hesychios]

…The idea that we the Church, clergy and laity together are to preserve the deposit of faith whole unchanged is ingrained into the Orthodox heart. It is not possible, as an earlier poster suggested for a council to “infallibly declare” anything that is contrary to the deposit of faith.

Most certainly.

If a council of Orthodox bishops were to proceed to union without agreement on doctrinal issues they would not be speaking for the Church…

That experiment was attempted at Brest. The bishops charitably insisted that they and Roma would refrain from discussion over some Latin doctrines, and Roma pretended to accept that at the time.

Unfortunately, the experiment was a failure, Zamosc effectively put an end to Orthodoxy in communion with Roma in that region, and it is not hard to see why. The Orthodox dioceses allowed Roma to appoint their bishops, and it was downhill from there. The intention of the original Orthodox bishops who so hopefully and prayerfully gambled on simple communion with Roma died at Zamosc, and something new rose to take it’s place. A new kind of church.

Orthodox dioceses cannot ever allow themselves to be placed in the position of having to accept bishops sent from Roma. Likewise Orthodox Patriarchates cannot ever allow themselves to be placed in the position of having to seek approval from Roma of their choice for Patriarch.

It is up to Roman Catholics to figure how they can accomodate these modest requirements, but if they can do it the possibility of reconciliation between us will be greatly improved.

What Roman Catholics can possibly hope for in the future is simple communion between us, that is all Orthodox churches and Orthodox Faithful ask of each other. But the bar Orthodox set for themselves is high, Orthodox churches and synods demand conformity in doctrine before allowing communion. They demand it of individuals within the parishes and they demand it of other dioceses and synods. It has always been this way. They do not demand the right to control each other.

Roman Catholics have to realize that their own church and bishops will never, ever hold administrative control over an Orthodox church.

Now if the Roman Catholic clergy and laity are growing impatient would like to see the schism healed more quickly, it could be as simple as their church accepting the Orthodox theology of their ancestors and predecessors. That is an intriguing, if highly unlikely, possibility.

Michael

 

[VARC]

WOW. 72% said yes absolutely. So does that mean catholics would be willing to retract papal infallibility from their faith?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

WOW. 72% said yes absolutely. So does that mean catholics would be willing to retract papal infallibility from their faith?

Only if the pope told me to.

 

[zagjames]

Only if the pope told me to.

 

[c659smith]

WOW. 72% said yes absolutely. So does that mean catholics would be willing to retract papal infallibility from their faith?

Now that would not be up to me and that decision would have to come from the Pope.

If the Pope made that decision than who are we to refute

I tell you though that would be about the time I would start getting some butterflys in the belly for the beginning of the end would not be far behind.

 

[Mickey]

I tell you though that would be about the time I would start getting some butterflys in the belly for the beginning of the end would not be far behind.

Actually, you should jump for joy because that would mean that Rome had decided to return to the pre-schism faith. It would mean that there was a greater chance for reunion!

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Actually, you should jump for joy because that would mean that Rome had decided to return to the pre-schism faith. It would mean that there was a greater chance for reunion!

How can one return to something that one never left? If Rome ( and I see know reason to do so) was to resend Papal infallibility it would neither not make it not so would just mean that a written declaration of it would no longer be needed. That at one time it was not an issue and did not need to be defined that the need arose and that the need had know past. It would not change the position of the Holy Father nor his authority in Christ Church.

I read these post about the reunion to the Holy Catholic Church and Holy Orthodox and the only thing is I walk away shaking my head. As from all the Orthodox I hear Rome has to make all the changes the there is no error in the Orthodox it is all the error of Rome. Brothers, I look over the History and can see the error on both sides and the the key to union is we need to quit the finger pointing. Maybe I am just a simple fool that does not fully realize the complexity of the causes for the schism, but it looks more to me as that the eastern Bishops at the time and since have been set on have there own way and unity of the church could be sacrificed if need be?

I pray the the talks between Rome and the Orthodox are more open hearted then what take place on here.

 

[VARC]

Only if the pope told me to.

If the Pope made that decision than who are we to refute

This fascinates me. If the pope told you to stop believeing in papal infallibility then you would just drop it from your faith. I have another question. Where do you draw the line? How about the immaculate conception? indulgences? I know the current pope commanded the church to stop teaching limbo. But what doctrines of your faith are outside the pope’s authority? At what point will you resist the pope to hold on to your faith?

 

[SiempreFiel]

This fascinates me. If the pope told you to stop believeing in papal infallibility then you would just drop it from your faith.

Papal infallibility was revealed by Almighty God to Holy Mother Church. As such, it is absolutely impossible to go back and say that the doctrine of papal infallibility is false. This is an absolute impossibility because of the fact that God does not contradict Himself. God’s Word “endures forever” - cf. Isa 40:8!

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

This fascinates me. If the pope told you to stop believeing in papal infallibility then you would just drop it from your faith…

What do you suppose we should do? I hope your not suggesting that we should create a schism with the pope.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I know the current pope commanded the church to stop teaching limbo.

This is not a true statement. What Pope Benedict has said it that the Church teaching on limbo has never been defined as a dogmatic truth. He has not said that it is a false teaching, he has said that we do not know how God handles the salvation of those infants that have died with the stain of original sin without baptism.

They may be in heaven they may be in a state like heaven but not in the full presence of God. We just don’t know. all we do know is because they are innocent of all but original sin they are not in hell.

This is not a direct quote but my summation and understanding from what I have read of what The Holy Father has said.

 

[Mickey]

As from all the Orthodox I hear Rome has to make all the changes

She only has to return to the faith of our Fathers.

but it looks more to me as that the eastern Bishops at the time and since have been set on have there own way and unity of the church could be sacrificed if need be?

It is very simple actually. The Holy Orthodox Church will not compromise the faith.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!