M
Mickey
Guest
Nah. It would be simple. Go back to the pre-schism Church and viola!
No strange doctrine of infallibility.
Question for Catholics and Orthodox: would you follow your Church?
- Status
No strange doctrine of infallibility.
M
Mickey
Guest
Really!!! All those years of teaching it in Catholic schools–and suddenly it is false?
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Please reread what i said. he has not said that it is a false teaching. nor has he said limbo is not to be taught as the person in the post I was responding to stated He has stated that he do not know the status of the unbaptized child.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Or Orthodox could return to the faith of her fathers as the Holy Catholic Church will not compromise the faith.
M
Mickey
Guest
Sorry. I misread your post. But I still do not understand. It is not a false teaching, but it no longer means what it used to mean. Oh the dichotomy of Rome.
M
Mickey
Guest
She never left it my friend.
It is Rome that has invented (innovated) new doctrines and calls it “doctrinal development”. :nope:
Z
zagjames
Guest
It was never doctrinal, it was “theological speculation” that was very popular back 30 to 50 years ago. The pope merely said that it is not dogmatic truth and should not be taught as truth, etc. That is is speculation and we cannot know the what the truth what happens to babies who die/are aborted before they could be baptized.Sorry. I misread your post. But I still do not understand. It is not a false teaching, but it no longer means what it used to mean. Oh the dichotomy of Rome.
Micky this is a silly issue for you pick out. Of all the theological issues that you could discuss this one is very meaningless to discuss, simply because it is just “theological speculation.”
If the Pope rejected Papal Infalliability through an infalliable statement then I think my head would blow up. Its like antimatter and matter being in the same space, it just wont work out pretty. I would probably have to go join some sort of crazy sedevandest (spelling) group if this happened…
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
The problem is the you see it one way as I see it the opposite. From the position of a Catholic it is the Orthodox that left the faith her faith by rejection of the teaching from the Holy Roman See. Thank God It is neither you nor I that will be making the decisions concerning union, but will be done by our beloved Bishops and the Holy Spirit. Pray for union This back and forth your wrong no you are is very childish. Also without Papal authority and Dogmatic Infallibility we would really have no unity for each Bishop would then be a Pope unto his self and would basically just a bunch of church doing and hold to whatever they wanted to as to the whim of that Bishop.
V
VARC
Guest
That’s not how that works in Orthodoxy. If a group of Orthodox bishop’s submits to Roman rule, the laity have a duty to abandon those bishops for others who refuse to change the orthodox faith. We don’t have a super orthodox bishop to which we all must submit but rather we must submit to the faith that we were handed.
That is an argument for pragmatism. Whether the papal monarchial model of Church is more administratively effecient than the Orthodox concilar model has no bearing on which ecclesiology is true. The Fathers ecclesiology was concilar.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
So basically you are saying if all the Bishops of Orthodox come to union with Rome you will start your own church. Thats very insightful.
Again here ever a counsel need someone one to head it. To keep it focused and to let members know when they are in error. the Church nor the governing of the Church is a democracy. Never was and never will will be. As I said before thank God reunion is in the hands of the Bishops and not you or me or most any one else on web site forums or the laity.
V
Volodymyr
Guest
The writer did not refer to union of Churches but to submission to bishop of Rome. The context of such a union is almost everything. Submission to Rome is not union of churches, but acceptance of other’s position. It is probably better to be hoped that Bishop of Rome return to Orthodox and Orthodox accept Bishop of Rome as important teacher. If that happens there will be few who will not rejoice.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Come on now you know questions like this are designed to be unanswerable. What if the Pope taught that transubstantiation was heresy, would you follow him?
That’s all well and good but who keeps the head focused, lets him know when he is in error?
Neither is it a totalitarian dictatorship. Never was and never will be. In Catholic eccelsiology is there no place for the laity at all? Is it not the clergy and the laity together that constitute the Church. The idea that there is one bishop with the ability to discern secret knowledge to exclusion of the rest of the Church is foreign to tradition and experience. My friend the gnostic idea that only a select few are able to discern the truth was condemned as heresy a long time ago.
Yours in Christ
Joe
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
V
VARC
Guest
I said no such thing. I said that if some orthodox bishops accepted the infallibility of the Roman bishop then they would cease to be orthodox and I would communicate with the Orthodox bishops that resisted the union.
It is not an absolute dictatorship either. Never has been and never will be.
You still don’t get it. All of the bishops in the Byzantine Empire accepted union on Rome’s terms in the council of Florence for political expediency. St. Mark of Ephesus was the only bishop that refused to go along with it because it was contrary to the Orthodox faith. The laity refused to attend Liturgy except at Ephesus.
In Orthodoxy, the laity are expected to know and hold the orthodox faith regardless if the most bishops abandon it. We are not expected to blindly follow the bishops if they change the faith. God will raise another St Mark to sheppard the orthodox.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Amen!
Kontakion Tone 3
Clothed with invincible armor, O blessed one,
You cast down rebellious pride,
You served as the instrument of the Comforter,
And shone forth as the champion of Orthodoxy.
Therefore we cry to you: “Rejoice, Mark, the boast of the Orthodox!”
Yours in Christ
Joe
M
Mickey
Guest
I can assue you that I will not be involved in the process of reunion. I am but a lowly worm. But I can tell you this much. One Church maintains the faith of our Fathers. I have always been a conservative and I am very comfortable with the seven Ecumenical Councils and the faith of the Apostolic Church of the first millenium.
You claim that Rome’s additions are development of seeds. I say they are innovations and errors. True reunion will happen if East and West can return to the faith of the Church before the schism.
And this faith and praxis looks very much like today’s Holy Orthodox Church.
For this to be successful, Rome would have to abandon, purgatory, indulgences, IC, supremacy/infallibility, and Filioque for starters.
M
Mickey
Guest
But it was taught as truth for many years–with no disclipline from Rome. It was taught to me as truth by the nuns when I attended Roman Catholic grade school. Now it is not to be believed!
Oh the dichotomy!
M
MattG
Guest
Yes, absolutely
Yes, but the changes would have to be in my Church’s favor
Maybe
No, not at all. They need to accept my Church’s terms and that’s it! No compromise!
All, Some, Most, or no polls are decidedly fashioned to produce a desired reslult. This poll is, is not, might be one of them.
Since reunification is the burden the poll is placing on respondents, and at the expense of our home grown experience attempts to make the choice difficult with the options.
My choice was “Yes” because the other choice, #2 and #4 are identical IMO, and maybe (even) are illogical. “[M]y Church’s favor” and my church’s terms" are two choices without a difference, and illogical because once reunified there would be one church, not “my” chuch, but our church, again, in fact, rather than history. It is good to see that “Yes” is the major opinion.
If this post succeeds at influencing voters one way rather than any other, so be it.
If this is unlawful politicking, then only I and one leader of the pack will see it.
Yes, but the changes would have to be in my Church’s favor
Maybe
No, not at all. They need to accept my Church’s terms and that’s it! No compromise!
All, Some, Most, or no polls are decidedly fashioned to produce a desired reslult. This poll is, is not, might be one of them.
Since reunification is the burden the poll is placing on respondents, and at the expense of our home grown experience attempts to make the choice difficult with the options.
My choice was “Yes” because the other choice, #2 and #4 are identical IMO, and maybe (even) are illogical. “[M]y Church’s favor” and my church’s terms" are two choices without a difference, and illogical because once reunified there would be one church, not “my” chuch, but our church, again, in fact, rather than history. It is good to see that “Yes” is the major opinion.
If this post succeeds at influencing voters one way rather than any other, so be it.
If this is unlawful politicking, then only I and one leader of the pack will see it.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
As I have said thanks be to God that the Hope of union lay with the Bishops and not with you and me.I can assue you that I will not be involved in the process of reunion. I am but a lowly worm. But I can tell you this much. One Church maintains the faith of our Fathers. I have always been a conservative and I am very comfortable with the seven Ecumenical Councils and the faith of the Apostolic Church of the first millenium.
You claim that Rome’s additions are development of seeds. I say they are innovations and errors. True reunion will happen if East and West can return to the faith of the Church before the schism.
And this faith and praxis looks very much like today’s Holy Orthodox Church.
For this to be successful, Rome would have to abandon, purgatory, indulgences, IC, supremacy/infallibility, and Filioque for starters.
M
mardukm
Guest
And the Eastern Orthodox would, of course, have to abandon its innovation that the primacy of a head bishop is one of mere honor, that the lay people can judge her bishops in matters of doctrine, your dogmatic theological langauge that Essence/Energy IS God (several of my Coptic Orthodox friends would say that you need to reject making God a Quadernity by that teaching), the rejection of the doctrine of Atonement in some quarters of your Church, its lax teaching on divorce and remarriage (especially the Russian Orthodox), its denial that the Son has a role in the Procession (in some (many?) quarters), its so-called “Cyprianic” ecclesiology which rejects valid baptism in the name of the Trinity – just for starters.For this to be successful, Rome would have to abandon, purgatory, indulgences, IC, supremacy/infallibility, and Filioque for starters.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status