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

[Harpazo]

After reading this thread, I am beginning to believe that the Protestant Reformation was not regrettable, but was inevitable.

How sad.

Not exactly, Luke. It is quite clear that is was men’s lust for sounds to comfort their itching ears. It was avoidable, yet because all of us are human, we are prone to make mistakes once and a while. Both sides are to blame. However, the mistakes on one do not reflect the verity of the whole.

By this statement, are you giving your approval of the deformation and schism/heresies that occured?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

I can’t believe a Catholic would say something like this. It sounds good as if you want to be “nice” to everyone. There is nothing wrong with showing kindness to others but we cannot be complacent when it comes to our Catholic beliefs.

The Catholic Church will never change her doctrines when it comes to faith & morals, NEVER. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. God will NEVER change.

As far as discipline, that can change and it has over time. But I would never settle for a change in doctrine as I know that it will never change anyway. It can’t change. The Church does not have the power to change anything concerning doctrine & dogma.

To be fair to Wyatt, I don’t think he was saying what you think he said. The Orthodox believe nearly all of what the Latin Church believes, but express it differently. Perhaps Wyatt can clear up what he meant.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[PaulDupre]

It would be a great blessing if East and West Christians were to reunite. And as a Catholic, I would trust Christ working through His Church to bring it into unity.

Me too!

 

[PaulDupre]

I can’t believe a Catholic would say something like this. It sounds good as if you want to be “nice” to everyone. There is nothing wrong with showing kindness to others but we cannot be complacent when it comes to our Catholic beliefs.

The Catholic Church will never change her doctrines when it comes to faith & morals, NEVER. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. God will NEVER change.

As far as discipline, that can change and it has over time. But I would never settle for a change in doctrine as I know that it will never change anyway. It can’t change. The Church does not have the power to change anything concerning doctrine & dogma.

What doctrine of Faith or Morals would need to change in order for reunification to take place? I can’t think of any, except the Filioque clause, which could be left up to the individual rites. Hey, it’s a mystery anyway.

 

[Wyatt]

I can’t believe a Catholic would say something like this. It sounds good as if you want to be “nice” to everyone. There is nothing wrong with showing kindness to others but we cannot be complacent when it comes to our Catholic beliefs.

The Catholic Church will never change her doctrines when it comes to faith & morals, NEVER. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. God will NEVER change.

As far as discipline, that can change and it has over time. But I would never settle for a change in doctrine as I know that it will never change anyway. It can’t change. The Church does not have the power to change anything concerning doctrine & dogma.

I completely agree with you. I think maybe you misunderstood what I said. I’m saying that if reunification occurs, nothing will change that shouldn’t. This would include things that are infallible and binding on the Church such as doctrines and Dogmas proclaimed either ex cathedra or in Ecumenical Councils. All I was trying to say was that I would absolutely go along with the Church because I trust the Church to not change anything that would lead us into error because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ.

If the Churches became one again (as Christ intended us to be) neither side would change anything that would cause the one reunified Church to be in error because that would negate Christ’s promise, which is impossible.

 

[Harpazo]

What doctrine of Faith or Morals would need to change in order for reunification to take place? I can’t think of any, except the Filioque clause, which could be left up to the individual rites. Hey, it’s a mystery anyway.

I agree. Although the filioque is a point of contention, that wasn’t a big player in the schism in the Middle Ages. It was mostly petty politics on both sides.

In fact, both East and West believe the same on the filioque clause, as being defined as being “proceeding from the Father through the Son.” If only the Latin Church would make this official, so the EO would actually believe us on the matter.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

Not exactly, Luke. It is quite clear that is was men’s lust for sounds to comfort their itching ears. It was avoidable, yet because all of us are human, we are prone to make mistakes once and a while. Both sides are to blame. However, the mistakes on one do not reflect the verity of the whole.

By this statement, are you giving your approval of the deformation and schism/heresies that occured?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

It was called the Reformation - not deformation - but your true colors are now coming through, Andrew.

Yes, it was very regrettable, and no I don’t give tacit approval to the horrible things that happened in schisms. Attitudes like yours, though, by those who were entrusted with the leadership of the Church, probably contributed to them, however.

In the future, you should try less to editorialize if you want genuine conversation in practicing Christian apologetics. Your attitude won’t win souls.

O+

 

[Harpazo]

It was called the Reformation - not deformation - but your true colors are now coming through, Andrew.

Yes, it was very regrettable, and no I don’t give tacit approval to the horrible things that happened in schisms. Attitudes like yours, though, by those who were entrusted with the leadership of the Church, probably contributed to them, however.

In the future, you should try less to editorialize if you want genuine conversation in practicing Christian apologetics. Your attitude won’t win souls.

O+

Shlomo Luke,

I appreciate your judgment on my intentions, even though your opinion is just that, an opinion. You certainly cannot believe that Christianity was reformed. Obviously it has been deformed because there is no unity at all amongst Protestants, and you know this. Now we have rampant new beliefs (what the Holy Catholic Church refers to as heresies) of the sort all throughout Christianity (OSAS, anti-Trinitarianism, believer’s Baptism, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, etc.).

Why do these innovations continue? It’s the pride of the people within the groups, that are looking for their ears to be tickled as St. Paul says in one of his epistles to St. Timothy. Before the 1500s rolled around most, if not all, of these beliefs did not exist. Therefore, they cannot be considered orthodox teaching and can be declared as deforming Christianity. These “h-word” beliefs were produced by a deformation of Christianity, by men. It is rather cut and dry.

This is the truth of the matter. The good news is that you can help to bring an end to this. You can enter into the Holy Catholic Church. Let’s not make Christ’s death in vain, this applies to Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

You have gone out of your way to insulted me and my faith - again. You may have the last word, as I see no need to discuss this further.

O+

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

What doctrine of Faith or Morals would need to change in order for reunification to take place? I can’t think of any, except the Filioque clause, which could be left up to the individual rites. Hey, it’s a mystery anyway.

The Filioque is one doctrine. I think the other is Papal Infallibility.

And then there are contemporary issues, such as contraception and divorce.

But, if we can’t work out the simple things - such as what date is Easter - I think we have no chance regarding the above doctrines.

 

[031064]

I don’t think the date of easter is really a big deal- eastern Catholics already celebrate it on a different day. I think the main hting is not the filoque but the papal supremecy.

 

[JRKH]

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.

What say the rest of you and why?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

I have not read through the discussion but will add my 2c on the OP.
The only answer can be to follow the Church.
This cannot be viewed as some sort of business negotiation, or treaty talks between countries. These are discussions between the seperated brethren. If I were to place my own desires, my own judgement, in front of the the decisions and determinations, indeed the revelations of the Holy Spirit, that were to come from these talks, I would be just as guilty those who left Jesus over His statement that they must eat His Flesh.
Whatever decisions were to come out of these talks we must cling to Christ and His Church. We must be as the Apostles and say, “Master, where shall we go? You have the words of eternal Life.”

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

Wyatt;3870736:

I voted “yes, absolutely.” The reason being, if reunification did occur, it would be Christ’s will that it was happening. Whether the Orthodox are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or whether Catholics are doesn’t change the outcome of reunification. If the two churches are reuniting…one of them is the True Church, so any changes that occur would have to be from Christ since Christ said the Gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church…which means the Church cannot fall into error.

So yes, as a Catholic…believing in the One Church founded by Jesus Christ, I would accept any changes since I know that the Church falling into apostasy would be an impossibility because it would render Christ’s promise false, which it cannot be. So if the two Churches agree on certain terms for reunification…I trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Churches so that they are kept free from heresy.

I can’t believe a Catholic would say something like this.

It was a pretty unbelievably awesome statement.

If the Churches became one again (as Christ intended us to be) neither side would change anything that would cause the one reunified Church to be in error because that would negate Christ’s promise, which is impossible.

Once again, right on.

 

[Harpazo]

I don’t think the date of easter is really a big deal- eastern Catholics already celebrate it on a different day. I think the main hting is not the filoque but the papal supremecy.

I agree. Catholics and Orthodox make too big a deal out of the filioque, when it is not necessary to do so, considering we believe the same thing. The problem is, we are always talking past each other.

At Ravenna, HH Pope Benedict XVI said he and the Orthodox would be willing to rediscover the role of the Patriarchate of Rome. I think this would be a good thing. It is rather obvious that the Papacy did assume more power since the schism in the 1400s, because it had to since the Eastern Churches were not there to help govern. The good news is, that HH is willing to return some of the power to the other Patriarchs in the Catholic Church. I prayerfully wait for reunion.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Peter_J]

I agree. Catholics and Orthodox make too big a deal out of the filioque, when it is not necessary to do so, considering we believe the same thing. The problem is, we are always talking past each other.

See also Fr. Hopko on the filioque.

 

[Harpazo]

See also Fr. Hopko on the filioque.

I agree with Fr. Hopko’s assertions completely, that is if I understood him correctly. He’s saying that the Pope of Rome needs to clarify that the Church teaches on it, meaning “From the Father through the Son” correct? I do agree that the Filioque does not lend to the belief of single procession and the Latin Church needs to clarify this. The question is, how will the Pope be able to do this without causing mass confusion?

My pastor told me that the Maronites had talked about returning to using the Creed sans the filioque, but they are having trouble with it for some reason or another. If HH Pope Benedict XVI did push for a return to the Creed or at least clarify the language, would that really do that much for our Eastern brothers and sisters, or would they find another obstacle?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[031064]

At Ravenna, HH Pope Benedict XVI said he and the Orthodox would be willing to rediscover the role of the Patriarchate of Rome. I think this would be a good thing. It is rather obvious that the Papacy did assume more power since the schism in the 1400s, because it had to since the Eastern Churches were not there to help govern. The good news is, that HH is willing to return some of the power to the other Patriarchs in the Catholic Church. I prayerfully wait for reunion.

I’m not sure of the truth of this statement- the papacy does not recognize and does not, in fact, have ‘too much’ power- it only has the power that Christ intends it to have. I too prayerfully await reunion, however I know that the pope has supreme power over the Church- this makes the patriarch subordinate (this is not meant to offend but state the Catholic view). Also, I’m not sure that the pope has agreed to re-analysing his role- I’m pretty sure that was infallibly stated at Vatican I.

 

[031064]

I think their may also be some moral things such as contraception that would need to be dealt with- the Orthodox have strayed from the orthodox (haha) teaching on this issue. His Beautitude Patriarch Bartholemew, though I love him so, will have to humble himself and kiss the pope’s fisherman’s ring in order to bring a full and fruitful reunification.

 

[Harpazo]

I’m not sure of the truth of this statement- the papacy does not recognize and does not, in fact, have ‘too much’ power- it only has the power that Christ intends it to have. I too prayerfully await reunion, however I know that the pope has supreme power over the Church- this makes the patriarch subordinate (this is not meant to offend but state the Catholic view). Also, I’m not sure that the pope has agreed to re-analysing his role- I’m pretty sure that was infallibly stated at Vatican I.

The papacy has assumed more power than it had pre-schism. This is a fact. However, it isn’t because Rome was power hungry, but they had to consolidate power in order to run the Church after the other Churches left.

The other Patriarchs are not subordinate to the Pope. They all rule their respective Churches, however they do not enjoy universal jurisdiction over their particular Churches. This can change, and I believe we will see the Pope giving back some of this power to the Patriarchs. My pastor (Maronite Catholic) describes the Pope as wearing 3 hats, or as having 3 roles:

1. Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, therefore equal to all other Bishops.
2. Speaks on behalf of all Catholics (represents) in regards to Faith and Morals
3. Patriarch of Rome and the West

All the Patriarchs work together, but the Pope is the seat of orthodoxy and unity. Although he is given a special role by virtue of the Petrine Ministry, he is not supposed to have complete and total control over the entire Church, ruling with an iron first. Although I don’t believe you were trying to say that.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Lilyflower]

It would be a great blessing if East and West Christians were to reunite. And as a Catholic, I would trust Christ working through His Church to bring it into unity.

Blessings and peace