E
eOxy
Guest
Any chance that at least one of those priests (whom “bless” contraception and vasectomy) have the name and bishop on whose omophorion he serves?
- Status
J
Joseph_L_Varga
Guest
Hi Mickey and eOxy,
sorry, I will try to be more charitable! But I certainly didn’t mean this as an insult, only an illustration of how the majority of Catholic clergy wanted to permit ABC, and it was only the Pope who saved them from falling into error. My initial remark concerned the Catholic Church, and only after Hesychios told that my example is not relevant in the Orthodox Church, did I add that Protestants and EO have fallen into the same error. It was a poster named StMarina303ad who told that EO priests in her jurisdiction blessed ABC and vasectomy; I don’t know who is her bishop and which EO Church does she belong to. But I’m happy to hear that your Churches do not permit ABC.
However, I hope you don’t mind if I immediately use this example as another illustration of why the Pope is necessary.
Because in the Catholic Churches, the Pope was able to impose this ban on East and West, North and South, and everything in between. The 22 or 23 Catholic Churches speak with a unified voice on ABC. However, reading StMarina303ad’s posts, it seemed to me that EO Churches do not speak with a unified voice. I know, for example, that ROCOR does NOT permit ABC. But StMarina303ad posted links to some Synodal statements, it seems to me from the GOA or OCA, that permitted ABC. Those were high level statements on policy, not simply isolated voices from dissenting priests.
Now, if any Catholic priest condones ABC, that priest represents a voice of dissent from the official teaching of the CC, which is pretty sad. And Catholics who disobey on this are in mortal sin, unless their priest failed to inform them about the fact that ABC is a mortal sin. That’s also very sad, when Catholics live in mortal sin. I certainly admit that the CC must improve the visibility of this issue, so that nobody is left uninformed about what is permitted and what isn’t. We have the Catechism of the CC and it’s widely available, but not everybody reads it.
sorry, I will try to be more charitable! But I certainly didn’t mean this as an insult, only an illustration of how the majority of Catholic clergy wanted to permit ABC, and it was only the Pope who saved them from falling into error. My initial remark concerned the Catholic Church, and only after Hesychios told that my example is not relevant in the Orthodox Church, did I add that Protestants and EO have fallen into the same error. It was a poster named StMarina303ad who told that EO priests in her jurisdiction blessed ABC and vasectomy; I don’t know who is her bishop and which EO Church does she belong to. But I’m happy to hear that your Churches do not permit ABC.
However, I hope you don’t mind if I immediately use this example as another illustration of why the Pope is necessary.
Because in the Catholic Churches, the Pope was able to impose this ban on East and West, North and South, and everything in between. The 22 or 23 Catholic Churches speak with a unified voice on ABC. However, reading StMarina303ad’s posts, it seemed to me that EO Churches do not speak with a unified voice. I know, for example, that ROCOR does NOT permit ABC. But StMarina303ad posted links to some Synodal statements, it seems to me from the GOA or OCA, that permitted ABC. Those were high level statements on policy, not simply isolated voices from dissenting priests.Now, if any Catholic priest condones ABC, that priest represents a voice of dissent from the official teaching of the CC, which is pretty sad. And Catholics who disobey on this are in mortal sin, unless their priest failed to inform them about the fact that ABC is a mortal sin. That’s also very sad, when Catholics live in mortal sin. I certainly admit that the CC must improve the visibility of this issue, so that nobody is left uninformed about what is permitted and what isn’t. We have the Catechism of the CC and it’s widely available, but not everybody reads it.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I guess it depends whom you ask. If you ask me, I’ll tell you that Papal Infallibility, Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction (a.k.a. “Papal supremacy”) and the Immaculate Conception have all been dogmatically defined, and therefore are mandatory for full communion.
If I didn’t believed that three teachings have been dogmatically defined, then presumably my answer to your question would be different.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Wow, that’s an eye-opener. It hadn’t occurred to me that they would even read this thread. I wonder how much time they’ll spend discussing whether or not Pope Clement I issued an infallible teaching?
J
josethomas2005
Guest
But Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch had sent 7 or 8 letters to different churches. One letter addressed the Roman church. Then how Clement?
H
Hesychios
Guest
What you are promoting is a fiction. In the first place a teaching role is much beyond defining dogma. In fact, defining new dogma is not a proper part of teaching the Faith, it is the conserving and transmission of the Faith once handed from Christ to the Apostles that is the teaching office of the church.
There is no place for the defining new dogmas. The church always addressed threats of heresy by Council, and in those cases when a more positive definition (the setting of limits to an understanding, an apophatic approach) was called for, it was always as a Council of the Fathers that such decisions were made.
You attack the Orthodox Faith over the issue of artificial birth control, yet the Orthodox faith does not promote, and certainly does not “bless” the use of artificial birth control (people who think that have confused the terminology). In fact the church condemns all forms of abortifactants and directly opposes abortion. Techniques individuals might employ outside of this within their marriage are as benign as the rhythm method.
When the couple have only an MD to turn to for advice, they will only get an MD’s perspective. Orthodox families are plugged in to the church and encouraged to consult with their own spiritual directors (usually the pastor). The church always encourages life and engages the needs of families with pastoral concern. This is something many Roman Catholic priests sometimes attempt to do as well, even though they are not really permitted to.
Now from the perspective of Holy Orthodoxy, your claim that “Popes have never taught error” is unconvincing, because:
Every priest and bishop, including later bishops of Rome, who have endorsed the filioque have taught error. That is about 1,000 years worth of mistakes.
Every priest and bishop, including bishops of Rome, who have promoted the notion that one man on his own authority could proclaim dogma for the entire church have taught error. Only heretics have ever introduced dogma upon their own authority, men like Marcion, Valentinus, Arius, Calvin etc. The Orthodox Catholic Faith never has accepted the authority of one individual to define dogma for the church…
Every priest and bishop, including bishops of Rome, who have promoted the concept that any one bishop controls the entire church have taught error. It was never that way from even the very first day. Historically, early bishops of Rome had no direct authority outside of their own Metropolitan See (you can find this out for yourself just by doing some simple research). They did not even name bishops outside of their own Metropolitan See except in cases of missionary endeavor, which other metropolitans did as well.
Then of course there are those who have taught error by their own personal life examples, and there are so many it does not bear recounting here. How many they have led astray is anyone’s guess.
The entire concept of transactional salvation and the sale of indulgences was an error so great in magnitude that it lead to schism and wars. Millions ultimately died to war while countless more fell to destitution and abuse. How many souls were lost through that gamesmanship no one can tell, yet apologists will claim the Pope was not “teaching” anything while he was promoting this serious theological mistake.
These are some of the reasons why we must wait for reconciliation. Holy Orthodoxy must wait for the Holy Spirit to soften your bishop’s hearts, and lead your church back to the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Faith of your ancestors and predecessors.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
I believe it was God that brought about the split between East and West. I also believe that God does not wish for the split between East and West to be healed. Personally, I don’t want reunion between East and West either. Nevertheless, times will change soon. People are asking God for reunion - remember, in the Old Testament the people asked God for a king, and God gave them a king, but God also made very clear that it’s not what he wanted because He was their King. There are reasons God divided the Church, and these reasons will become evident once God grants reunion, starting between the Church of Russia and the Church of Rome - in less than five years from now.
Even though I am not in favor of reunion, I very well may go along with it when it happens. It depends if there’s no other ethical alternative available to me and my family when this day comes. Obedience to my local bishop and the priest is very important to me. Since I’m not a clergyman I am free to switch to another priest or even another bishop - but this might not be a practical option for me when that day comes. So, if because of worldwide ecclesiastical union with Rome, my home parish essentially becomes “Roman Catholic”, I will remain and be Roman Catholic as well, out of obedience - unless my local parish changes the wording of the Nicene Creed in the Divine Liturgy, then I still might go to the same parish church, but I will abstain from Holy Communion there.
Even though I am not in favor of reunion, I very well may go along with it when it happens. It depends if there’s no other ethical alternative available to me and my family when this day comes. Obedience to my local bishop and the priest is very important to me. Since I’m not a clergyman I am free to switch to another priest or even another bishop - but this might not be a practical option for me when that day comes. So, if because of worldwide ecclesiastical union with Rome, my home parish essentially becomes “Roman Catholic”, I will remain and be Roman Catholic as well, out of obedience - unless my local parish changes the wording of the Nicene Creed in the Divine Liturgy, then I still might go to the same parish church, but I will abstain from Holy Communion there.
E
eOxy
Guest
Huh?
It would be nice if you could reveal to us the base for your predictions about five-years-term for union between Russians and Roman Pope.
BTW, are you happen to know that Synod of Bulgarian Orthodox Church decided a few days ago not to attend the dialogue with Roman Catholics scheduled for October in Cyprus, since they found it exhausted and fruitless?
H
Hesychios
Guest
I don’t see it myself.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
I’m a person who likes short and simple questions and answers. Unfortunately, to fully explain my conviction that the Russian Church will unite with Rome will require writing a thesis paper several pages long. Some day I suppose I’m going to have to do this and then provide a link to it in this forum. The only simple answer I can give about it now is to say that if the Patriarch of Russia issued a ukaz for all the Russian clergy to obey a rule of unity with Bishop of Rome than 99.9% of the Russian clergy would obey and be under the jurisdiction of Rome. Do you suppose that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church would concider such a patriarchal ukaz “fruitless” as well?
M
Mickey
Guest
Wonderful post Michael. I pray that Joseph can learn from this before he continues attacking Holy Orthodoxy.
M
Mickey
Guest
H
Harpazo
Guest
Hmm. I am in the Bulgarian Diocese in the US. I don’t really hear much about news from Sofia though. Would you be willing to post a link about this? I have heard that the Bulgarians are the most “anti-ecumenical” from some folks. Was there anyone from the Bulgarian Patriarchate at Ravenna a few years ago?
I would love to see reunion take place, but I do not believe it will occur in my lifetime. Rome would have to give up too much and would ultimately have to admit that it was wrong on several things, causing great scandal to its people.
I guess my question for Roman Catholics would be, would they accept a reunion if Rome were to admit that some or all of its post-schism dogmas were wrong?
In Christ,
Andrew
E
eOxy
Guest
Me neither, but our guesses are as valid as JohnVIII’s.
E
eOxy
Guest
E
eOxy
Guest
I am not good at IF=THEN speculations.The only simple answer I can give about it now is to say that if the Patriarch of Russia issued a ukaz for all the Russian clergy to obey a rule of unity with Bishop of Rome than 99.9% of the Russian clergy would obey and be under the jurisdiction of Rome. Do you suppose that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church would concider such a patriarchal ukaz “fruitless” as well?
The last time something similar happened Russians imprisoned such a bishop and declared autocephalia from Constantinopolis.
I don’t think it would be edifying for anyone, while it could be spiritually detrimental to me, to speculate about reaction of Bulgarian Church in such a case.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
unless you change Rites even with unity you would not be a Roman Catholic, You would just be part of the Catholic Church that includes both Roman and Eastern Rites. Why the scare over the addition of the " and the Son in the Creed is such a big deal I have never understood. First of all Rome has never mandated its use on the Eastern Catholic Churches, Second if in the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God then it does not mater if you say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father or if you say the Holy Ghost proceeds for the Father and the Son as The Father and the Son are God. Thirdly did not Jesus say that he would send the comforter( Holy Ghost) is not that the saying that he proceeds from me? Rome, the Holy Father would not interfere with the Divine Liturgy of. I maybe a simplton and I see Both Catholics and Orthodox make the same judgment, but the Holy Father is not a all powerful autocratic dictator. He is the Lead Shepard. he is the One that if one start to wonder should be called on to bring them home. Our Orthodox Brethren are Right that St Peter never ruled the Church, But they are wrong in that He did lead the Church. As with anything there must be a final word. In the home you have a mother and father even if they are in disagreement one must make the final decision and the other must support that decision. The same holds with our family the Chuch. after all have had their say one must make the final decision.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Gabriel of 12;
Pride of men is the only thing keeping this schism active. IF and when this does occurr we will still find some disgruntels. My prayer is that it will happen, and that it will bring much more unity to our liturgical Rites, and raise the minds of Catholics from a mundane Mass to a renewal Covenant relationship with our Living Abba Father, from whence the Church has always possessed, but Joe pew has forgotten or has not lived the “parousia”.
As it is today, Roman Catholic catechism includes the Eastern Catholic rites as part of catechetical instruction. Revealing both understanding of the sacraments brings in a fuller understanding and enlightenment to the individual. I have yet met an instructor or religious who frowns upon the Eastern Rites, but always displays an ever respectful and admiration of the Eastern Catholic Rites.
I believe both brothers need a time out, so that the Father can hand down the discipline of obedience. So that our Mother (Church) who is pregnant with child can ease her pain and suffering and allow her children to begin again as one family to give testimony and witness to Jesus Christ,
E
eOxy
Guest
From the Orthodox perspective there can be no “reconciliation” of “re-unification” as long as RC continue to profess the anathemized heresy filioque (under the anathema of 4 councils - 3 ecumenical ones plus one local).
Reduction of this stumbling block to “rites” is insulting.
On top of that, IMHO, there can be not even a thought about “primacy” (not to mention supemacy and infaillability) of Rome. Rome needs to humble herself for, say, approximately the same period that she had herself in heresy - exactly 996 years at the moment - and she would need to be demoted to the last in ranks.
I don’t think RC can accept that.
But there is always the hope in Holy Spirit (that proceeds from Father alone).
Reduction of this stumbling block to “rites” is insulting.
On top of that, IMHO, there can be not even a thought about “primacy” (not to mention supemacy and infaillability) of Rome. Rome needs to humble herself for, say, approximately the same period that she had herself in heresy - exactly 996 years at the moment - and she would need to be demoted to the last in ranks.
I don’t think RC can accept that.
But there is always the hope in Holy Spirit (that proceeds from Father alone).
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Alas, I don’t know.
I’m not on the policy making level.
But I have gathered in the Middle East, the different Christian communities, while faithful to their own traditions, pretty much float back and forth from Church to Church. For example, the line between Melkite and Antiochian Orthodox, or Syriac Orthodox and Syrian Catholic just isn’t as precise as we find in the USA.
Yea, there is frequent concelebration among these different groups.
Which makes me wonder: could the Schism of 1054 (and earlier ones) continue if the faithful simply refused to recognize and support them?
I might add about the Bodily Assumption of the Theotokos–there are references to this event in the post-festal texts for the Dormtion on 15 August.
- Status