Question for Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter AveChriste11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gabriel,

There is no church in my city that practices a Western liturgy, they are all Eastern rite churches. So, I never considered myself Western Orthodox…except for the fact that I live and was born in the West. 🙂

Yeah, I really thought scholasticism was another innovation. This all seems to come from St. Thomas Aquinas heavy attraction to Aristotle, distinguishing the substance from the “accidents”.
 
No one is saying the named Popes were not the named Popes.
Apparently you are, CMatt. Either they occupy a place in history apart from the faith of the Church, or they do not. If you say “what the Catholic Church interprets” then it is not necessarily an historical fact.

Like the Neo Nazis saying there was really no holocaust. That is their intrepretation of history, despite the historical evidence to the contrary.
Only if the Catholic Church had/has Her interpretations correct. Case in point. For instance, the Catholic Church claims Episcopalians are outside Apostolic succession. The Episcopalians differ with that view. Why? Because it is all a matter of faith and belief as to Christ’s Church and where He leads it.
And this is moral relativism in a nutshell. There is no real objective truth.All truth is a matter of personal opinion and perspective.

Whereas, if Jesus really did establish a visible authority on earth, and only those who are validly ordained stand in that succession of authority, it is not a matter of personal opinion.

The truth is that it is not “all a matter of faith and belief”. Divine revelation exists apart and above anyone;s personal belief sysetm,a nd historical truth does as well.
And truly it is nothing else but faith and belief despite your attempts or need to make it something else. May God bless you on your walk of faith.
Such a position is essential for one who wishes to deny the authority of the Church to define and teach the Truth. If one were to concede that God has revealed His Truth and that we are obligated to follow it, then one might find oneself in a position to have to change ones values and behavior accordingly. 😉
 
I’m also wondering about this whole idea of doctrinal development, proposed by Blessed John Henry Newman as a way of answering Anglicans to things that were not found in scripture. Why must we develop anything? Aren’t the first seven ecumenical councils enough for anyone? They at least form the basis of Christianity… and everything else could be easily left alone.
But my dear! That is preciselywhat the councils did! They developed the doctrine of the Trintiy, the hypostatic union, the concept of the Theotokos, the canon of scripture, etc, etc. Doctrinal development took place every time there was rampant heresy requiring it.

The “basis” of Christianity is found in the “once for all” deposit of faith. This public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added or subtracted. When ideas are "developed’ it is really more our understanding and way of explaining things that develops. the doctrines of the faith cannot be changed.
 
Hey Guanophore,

That makes sense – I was reading something to that effect on a “This Rock” article. Which that would also explain how the doctrine of the Trinity developed, and why the Jews would never accept anything like that.

Since it says you’re an Eastern Catholic, or at least with a lot of Eastern Catholic tendencies… what is the difference between Jesus giving the Keys to Peter in Matthew 16, and then giving Keys to the other Apostles in Matthew 18…? Catholics always talk about those specific promises, but isn’t it just the same thing with the other apostles? That seems to make the most sense, the Pope only acting using his “Keys” in complete harmony and consensus with the other Patriarchs and what they’ve been given. Never completely over-ruling anyone…

I figure you and probably others are familiar with these statements from the Orthodox…
 
Very interesting Dave,

I had not heard any of that before. I think even the Orthodox agree that for around the first thousand years, Rome was known for her purity in the faith. The whole thing with emperors is another matter, you can’t do much about them. It’s well known that Photius did not speak or understand Latin, and therefore his entire mindset is coming from a slightly different perspective than the Latin Fathers.
Yes, but Photius must have been familiar with St. Maximus’ defense of filoque centuries earlier, right? St. Maximus was an expert in both Greek and Latin. Perhaps Photius should have studied St. Maximus writings more carefully. I suspect Photius’ motives were really the crux of the matter, not anything theologically relevant.
As far as whether six or eight, well I would never be so brave enough as to put my soul in danger by drawing that line.
And yet Orthodoxy has in fact drawn that arbitrary line, and as St. Matthew taught in Matt 28, “if refuses even to listen to the Church…”, then they are separated brethren.
The way I understand it, is that Rome had authority and was the ultimate court of appeal. She held primacy, but it was a primacy of love…
Which included primacy of jurisdiction, as St. Maximus of Contantinople clearly taught congruent with ancient Eastern Christiantiy centuries prior to the Photian denial of this doctrine.
 
Hey Guanophore,

Since it says you’re an Eastern Catholic, or at least with a lot of Eastern Catholic tendencies… what is the difference between Jesus giving the Keys to Peter in Matthew 16, and then giving Keys to the other Apostles in Matthew 18…? Catholics always talk about those specific promises, but isn’t it just the same thing with the other apostles? That seems to make the most sense, the Pope only acting using his “Keys” in complete harmony and consensus with the other Patriarchs and what they’ve been given. Never completely over-ruling anyone…

I figure you and probably others are familiar with these statements from the Orthodox…
Yes, the Successor of Peter does use his authority in conjuction with the other Apostolic successors. However due to his unique responsibility given by Christ to feed adn care for the flock, if all the other bishops had fallen from the faith, he would be required to act by himself if necessary.
 
Hey AveChriste11…
Joe,
I’m referring to things like papal infallibility in 1870, immaculate conception, scholasticism, the assumption which was defined in 1950. Rome seems to have a need to clarify everything, and the East seems to be too happy to accept most things as mysteries. All we need to know is the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Hypostatic Union, that Icons are to be venerated…among whatever else was defined by the first seven ecumenical councils.
So it’s OK for the church to clarify matters of doctrine in the face of opposition, but only for a few centuries? :confused: Do you believe that the holy spirit stopped guiding the CC into all truth after the 7th council?
The way I understand it, is that Rome had authority and was the ultimate court of appeal. She held primacy, but it was a primacy of love… that’s why Christ told us that it is not for us to “lord it over our brethren” the way the Gentiles do. I feel it would be historically accurate to say that a lot of Popes did indeed misuse their authority and power, only driving the Orthodox farther apart.
Surely God can guide His church into all truth regardless of those bad Popes, or bad Bishops or bad Priests and lay people?

Since the arrival of sola scriptura every SS proponent now has the authority and is now the ultimate court of appeal. :eek:
But like I said, her primacy was based on love… that is why the Lord asks “Peter, do you love me more than these?” and “Feed my sheep…”, we are fortunate that Pope Benedict considers himself a servant of the servants of God. It seems that besides him being a traditionalist, that quality also tends to grant him favor with the Patriarchates of Moscow, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc.
Well, Jesus did say to Simon: you are rock and on this rock I will build my church, and I don’t think Jesus stopped building His church upon the demise of Simon, renamed rock - right? 👍
 
Very interesting everyone! lol

I can’t tell you how many holes, and missing pieces have been filled in on this thread for me! Yeah I believe God can guide anything, in spite of a few bad apples in his flock. I agree with you though Joe, this whole Sola Scriptura thing I could never accept. I’ve seen plenty of flawed interpretations of Scripture with all of the cults out there… Bible-based cults, and non-Christian cults…

But you’re right though Dave, even Metropolitan Kallistos Ware agrees that the filioque is not a huge issue between the two churches. Things have changed quite a bit since the Council of Florence, where they only devoted 10 days to the study of Papal primacy. That seems to be the only remaining block to the reunion of the Eastern churches. Once you accept the Pope, then all of those other “blocks” sort of fall away… 🙂
 
Very interesting everyone! lol

I can’t tell you how many holes, and missing pieces have been filled in on this thread for me! Yeah I believe God can guide anything, in spite of a few bad apples in his flock. I agree with you though Joe, this whole Sola Scriptura thing I could never accept. I’ve seen plenty of flawed interpretations of Scripture with all of the cults out there… Bible-based cults, and non-Christian cults…

But you’re right though Dave, even Metropolitan Kallistos Ware agrees that the filioque is not a huge issue between the two churches. Things have changed quite a bit since the Council of Florence, where they only devoted 10 days to the study of Papal primacy. That seems to be the only remaining block to the reunion of the Eastern churches. Once you accept the Pope, then all of those other “blocks” sort of fall away… 🙂
I agree, and I think it is possible, at least hopeful, that Eastern Orthodoxy may “rediscover” the ancient Eastern Christianity of St. Maximus of Constantinople on papal jurisdiction, which seem no different than the Roman Pontiffs have taught…

St. Maximus of Constantinople on the primacy of the Roman Pontiff:
How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

“If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus [Patriarch of Constantinople] to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God… It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy… Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.” (St. Maximus, a letter to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus, cited by The Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Maximus of Contantinople”; the same letter is cited as Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.” (St. Maximus of Constantinople, letter from Rome, cited by The Catholic Encyclopdia, “St. Maximus of Contantinople”; the same work is found in Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top