Question:Why be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wesley7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Contarini said:
I don’t care whether it’s infallible or not. That’s something that members of your Communion can and do debate endlessly.

Catholics must submit to the teaching that women cannot be ordained, for instance. Yes, I know that you think it’s infallible. Fine. Not my concern.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Submit? Yes submit to Jesus and his teachings,precisely John Paul II said the church has NO authority to change what Jesus established. Infallible? Yes…Jesus never makes fallible decisions,precisely why the RCC/Orthodox did not cave in like the Episcopal church by ordaining women and open about their sexual preferences. An Episcopal issue and concern,not mine.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Nope! Now try again…
josephdaniel29 said:
So then it is an infallible teaching?
Click to expand...
No it is not doctrine,but theological speculations. In case you did not know,theologians and bishops are human too and can also give their opinions and speculations about anyhting,but does not equate into fallible teachings.
 
Nicea325 said:
No it is not doctrine,but theological speculations. In case you did not know,theologians and bishops are human too and can also give their opinions and speculations about anyhting,but does not equate into fallible teachings.
Click to expand...
No actually I thought theologians and bishops were most likely space aliens. Anyway, you asked me to give an example of a non-infallible teaching. Limbo was clearly a teaching and has not been infallibly defined so…Limbo = non-infallible teaching!
 
josephdaniel29 said:
No actually I thought theologians and bishops were most likely space aliens. Anyway, you asked me to give an example of a non-infallible teaching. Limbo was clearly a teaching and has not been infallibly defined so…Limbo = non-infallible teaching!
Click to expand...
I guess you do not comprehend what speculation means?

BTW: You are wrong again!
 
Based upon my understanding, correct me if I am wrong:

Nicea325 presents an Orthodox definiton of doctrine as not speculative. Orthodox require support of scripture and tradition.

josephdaniel29 presents the Catholic definition of a teaching as an understanding of a revealed truth, which may be infallable (dogma of faith) or not (speculative). Catholic require support of scripture or tradition.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Wow, could you be anymore condescending? 🤷

Really? Prove it.

Answer these simple questions.
  1. Was Limbo ever taught?
  2. Is it an infallible dogma?
Click to expand...
You are insulted because I said you do not comprehend the term speculation?

Prove it? Ah no josephdaniel,it is you ALONE who insist it is a fallible teaching,so you need to prove it to us.
 
Contarini said:
This is not convincing. He doesn’t say “one will in the human nature of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” The only reason to read this into Honorius’s statement is the inconvenience caused by the more likely interpretation. There’s no reason to suppose that he meant anything different by it than the monothelites did–or as I would say, the other monothelites! Hefele provides a long argument attempting to prove that he wasn’t a monothelite (in contrast to his own earlier argument in the first edition of his History of the Councils!).
Click to expand...
There is no basis to believe that he taught monothelitism, pointe final. Contarini, it in fact, would be dangerous for a council to condemn him as such. It is clear to me that you made a mistake when you stated that this was an open and shut case, and that Honorius was a Monothelite. I am not at all CONVINCED that he denied Jesus’s human will from what was said, and this I say for various reasons but most especially because those who defended him, including his predecessor specified in what manner Honorius used “one will”, moreover, he doesn’t say “one will in the person of Jesus Christ.” You Contarini obfuscated the truth by putting only part of the statement made by Honorius regarding “one will”. I know in what manner he was condemned if you cannot see this, then that is not the fault of either myself or any other Catholic apologist. You will believe what you WISH to believe.
 
Contarini said:
This is a stretch again. He is indeed being grouped with Sergius, because he agreed with him.

I don’t dispute that the Popes put things that way–naturally they would. It would appear that there were two views on Honorius–one dominant at the Council, that he was actually a heretic, and one held by Maximus and the Popes, who wanted to think more charitably of him. Holders of these two views had no reason to fight with each other, since they agreed on the point of doctrine, and they agreed that Honorius’s language was wrong.

I don’t have time to respond to the rest, and I think most of it addresses the infallibility issue.

Edwin
Click to expand...
His language cannot be understood as being monothelitic, i.e., there is nothing that belies this, except the mention of “one will” which under the circumstances (wording) makes more sense when applied to his human nature and not his actual person, this is why the popes qualified their statements and others defended him. Moreover, if he agreed with Sergius then it was with respect to a rule of silence and indirectly confirming (by not actually teaching authoritatively) Sergius in his errors. Any argumentation at this point is useless as you will continually defend your position and I will defend mine, but let it be known that the council which was confirmed and ratified by pope St. Leo III (who has the last say) made it clear in what sense Honorius was to be condemned.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Yeah, so the guy boils his lady and poisons his kid, kills many on the battle field and used Christianity for expediency and to win in warfare with a chi ro on the shields. Definite saintly material! 😛

But like I said, warmongers and killers I wouldn’t canonize but I’m not in charge of this stuff! But then again if they’re willing to try and make Clovis, Charlemagne and those guys holy, anyone can get in! 😛
Click to expand...
God instructed St. Constantine through a vision to put the chi rho on his shields,

Sure, anyone can get into heaven, even prostitutes and tax collectors.

There are many rulers who are also saints, either of the RCC, the OC or both: St. Vladimir, St. Stephen, St. Edward, St. Emeric, St. Ladislaus, St. Louis IX, St. Lazar, to name just a few.
 
Contarini said:
I am citing 19th-century scholars because I don’t think I have a detailed contemporary treatment of the question at hand–these guys are available on the Internet, and they are two 19th-century scholars whose work is still respected by scholars today.

But did the Monothelites uniformly deny a human will in Christ? If they did, then why was a standard argument against them (which you can find in Hefele, as linked above, pp. 68 and 80) that Jesus’ one will had to be either human, divine, or mingled, with all three options being heretical? It appears that some did, and indeed that the “monothelites” were not a monolithic, consistent group. But their uniform concern seems to be to maintain the unity of Jesus’ person *and *to make it clear that He was free from the disordered movements of will to which we are subject. Your source is creating a straw-man picture of Monothelitism in order to whitewash Honorius.
Click to expand...
Was Monothelitism condemned at Chalcedon, yes or no? Were they condemned because they believed in one will, i.e., denying that Jesus had a human will, yes or no? If the answer to these questions are yes (and they should be), then everything you’ve written is useless, i.e., we are debating whether Honorius was a Monothelite with respect to how Chalcedon defined Monothelitism. Since you believe he was, then I have to beg to differ. His use of the word "one will’ was not heretical, in fact, it is hard to believe that you (or others) would think he is denying Jesus’s human will when he specifically states that he had a will in reference to his human nature.

p.s. The Monothelites either believed that Jesus had a divine will which swallowed up his human will (which would deny he had a human will) or that his will was mingled (which still would be a denial of his human will). I do not see how Honorius believed either from what he wrote. Moreover, he sure as heck did not deny his divine will.
 
josie_L said:
His language cannot be understood as being monothelitic, i.e., there is nothing that belies this, except the mention of “one will” which under the circumstances (wording) **makes more sense when ** applied to his human nature and not his actual person, this is why the popes qualified their statements and others defended him. Moreover, if he agreed with Sergius then it was with respect to a rule of silence and indirectly confirming (by not actually teaching authoritatively) Sergius in his errors. Any argumentation at this point is useless as you will continually defend your position and I will defend mine, but let it be known that the council which was confirmed and ratified by pope St. Leo III (who has the last say) made it clear in what sense Honorius was to be condemned.
Click to expand...
The sentence should read: "i.e., there is nothing that belies this, except the mention of “one will” which under the circumstances (wording) is applied to his human nature and not his actual person . . . . "

p.s. Honorius is not denying Jesus’s human will nor his divine will.
 
Contarini said:
But did the Monothelites uniformly deny a human will in Christ? If they did, then why was a standard argument against them (which you can find in Hefele, as linked above, pp. 68 and 80) that Jesus’ one will had to be either human, divine, or mingled, with all three options being heretical? It appears that some did, and indeed that the “monothelites” were not a monolithic, consistent group. But their uniform concern seems to be to maintain the unity of Jesus’ person *and *to make it clear that He was free from the disordered movements of will to which we are subject. Your source is creating a straw-man picture of Monothelitism in order to whitewash Honorius.
Click to expand...
No, he is not creating a straw-man picture of Monothelitism in order to whitewash Honorius, please read this:
The two wills
Click to expand...
The Catholic doctrine is simple, at all events in its main lines. The faculty of willing is an integral part of human nature: therefore, our Lord had a human will, since He took a perfect human nature. His Divine will on the other hand is numerically one with that of the Father and the Holy Ghost. It is therefore necessary to acknowledge two wills in Christ.
Click to expand...
But if the word will is taken to mean not the faculty but the decision taken by the will (the will willed, not the will willing), then it is true that the two wills always acted in harmony: there were two wills willing and two acts, but one object, one will willed; in the phrase of St. Maximus, there were duo thelemata though mia gnome. The word will is also used to mean not a decision of the will, but a mere velleity or wish, voluntas ut natura (thelesis) as opposed to voluntas ut ratio (boulesis). These are but two movements of the same faculty; both exist in Christ without any imperfection, and the natural movement of His human will is perfectly subject to its rational or free movement. Lastly, the sensitive appetite is also sometimes entitled will. It is an integral part of human nature, and therefore exists in the perfect human nature of Jesus Christ, but without any of the imperfection induced by original or actual sin: He can have no passions (in that sense of the word which implies a revolt against the reason), no concupiscence, no “will of the flesh”. Therefore this “lower will” is to be denied in Christ, in so far as it is called a will, because it resists the rational will (it was in this sense that Honorius was said by John IV to have denied that Christ had a lower will); but it is to be asserted in Him so far as it is called will, because it obeys the rational will, and so is voluntas per participationem: in fact in this latter sense the sensual appetite is less improperly called will in Christ than in us, for quo perfectior est volens, eo magis sensualitas in eo de voluntate habet. But the strict Sense of the word will (votuntas, thelema) is always the rational will, the free will. It is therefore correct to say that in Christ there are but two wills: the Divine will, which is the Divine nature, and the human rational will, which always acts in harmony with and in free subjection to the Divine will. The denial of more than one will in Christ by the heretics necessarily involved the incompleteness of His human nature. They confounded the will as faculty with the decision of the faculty. They argued that two wills must mean contrary wills, which shows that they could not conceive of two distinct faculties having the same object. Further, they saw rightly that the Divine will is the ultimate governing principle, to hegemonikon, but a free human will acting under its leadership seemed to them to be otiose. Yet this omission prevents our Lord’s actions from being free, from being human actions, from being meritorious, indeed makes His human nature nothing but an irrational, irresponsible instrument of the Divinity — a machine, of which the Divinity is the motive power. To Severus our Lord’s knowledge was similarly of one kind — He had only Divine knowledge and no human cognitive faculty. Such thoroughgoing conclusions were not contemplated by the inventors of Monothelitism, **and Sergius merely denied two wills in order to assert that there was no repugnance in Christ’s human nature to the promptings of the Divine, and he certainly did not see the consequences of his own disastrous teaching. **
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm

In other words, the Monothelites were denying Jesus’s human will.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Are you serious? 🤷

Just stop dodging and answer the questions.
  1. Was Limbo ever taught?
  2. Is it infallible dogma?
Click to expand...
And you are serious? Really? It is you who is to stubborn to accept the term speculation,plain and simple.

Limbo is not an ** official defined dogma by the RCC **. Moreover, it is nothing but theological speculation…once again for the 10th time. A Catholic may believe or reject it.

Now since you insist on the opposite,show us the RCC doctrines stating it is an infallbile teaching?
 
josie_L said:
No, he is not creating a straw-man picture of Monothelitism in order to whitewash Honorius, please read this:

newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm
Click to expand...
Josie I would not go to far with contrarini,he clearly is anti-Roman Catholic,because it does not matter what one provides and what method or application,he does not care to hear it or accept it,but only stick to his own views.
 
Nicea325 said:
Josie I would not go to far with contrarini,he clearly is anti-Roman Catholic,because it does not matter what one provides and what method or application,he does not care to hear it or accept it,but only stick to his own views.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to stick up for Contrarini, he clearly IS NOT anti-RC, as you can clearly see if you look at a fair share of his posts. He actually looks at the historical context of whatever is being discussed and will make informed opinions of his own. He even reads historical documents himself and doesn’t just read snippets of historical documents from apologist’s articles. He won’t just look for articles by apologists that support his beliefs and do the common “cut-and-paste” that many people will do on religious forums. He makes informed opinions about what actually happened in history and is willing to admit if he is in error. He readily admits that he doesn’t know all the answers which is why he has said he can’t just become RC or EO, because although he believes these two Churches to be the most correct historical Churches, he can’t figure out which one is the most correct/truest/true Church (at least this is what I have understood from your posts Contrarini’s so if I’m wrong you can correct me). What I really respect from Contrarini is that he respects both Churches, he never has made personal insults to people (at least none that I saw), his posts are refreshing because they are his own opinions based on his own findings, he is willing to listen and take into consideration other peoples views/opinions, and he is willing to change his views and opinions if he considers himself in error.

(As a side note Contrarini, I was just curious why you don’t consider the Oriental Orthodox as well?)
 
Nicea325 said:
And you are serious? Really? It is you who is to stubborn to accept the term speculation,plain and simple.

Limbo is not an ** official defined dogma by the RCC **. Moreover, it is nothing but theological speculation…once again for the 10th time. A Catholic may believe or reject it.

Now since you insist on the opposite,show us the RCC doctrines stating it is an infallbile teaching?
Click to expand...
I know it was quite a few hours and a lot of posts ago; perhaps you have forgotten your post that got this entire series of posts going? If so I will remind you.
Nicea325 said:
Provide one non-infallible teaching?
Click to expand...
You didn’t say provide a non-infallible “officially defined dogma.” You said a “non-infallible teaching.”

Of course if you are going to define “teaching” as “officially defined dogma” then there is not going to be an example of one not being considered infallible by the Church. Otherwise why would it be “officially defined” to begin with. 🤷

If you define “teaching” as something that at one point was taught it’s an entirely different question. I never said or made the case that Limbo is or was an “officially defined” dogma. I never said it wasn’t “theological speculation.” What I am saying is that at one time it was taught. The Baltimore Catechism, an object of study in Catholic households for almost a century certainly bears that out.

Now since Limbo is a teaching in the sense that it was taught, and since it has not been infallibly defined, then it meets the requirements of your original question i.e. to give you a “non-infallible teaching.” 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top