Roman and Orthodox Church

[Hesychios]

It doesn’t make me uncomfortable. As if you are telling me some sort of new revelation that somehow debunks (in your mind) Catholicism.
It makes me angry because you’ve been here long enough to know not to write such inflammatory nonsense.
You say you came to defend Orthodoxy but then launch into an attack on Catholics and the Pope.
You say you want to present Orthodoxy in a good light to lurkers but sorry my friend, hate filled, biased rants such as the one you displayed seem counter productive to your cause.
You’ve managed to blend Catholic teaching with completely baseless polemic dribble.
I’m not referring to the Pope’s quotes. I’m referring to YOUR disrespectful claims that somehow Catholics are so stupid as to just abandon all reason and assume all that is needed is to bow down to the Pope.
The spirit of Schism has a tight grip on you.
Perhaps being banned is too harsh. Maybe just putting you on my ignore list is sufficent.

I am sorry to have offended you.

I wish I had been more circumspect in my replies to Mr Dickerson. A man who obviously takes a more traditional view of the Orthodox than most modern Catholics. I did not consider how hurtful my words would sound to you.

I do not in any way consider Roman Catholics to be stupid, and I have never said so.

I never said that all one has to do is “bow down to the Pope”. That is a misreading of my post.

What I did post was that if a person is not under the Pope (according to theology presented here courtesy of Pope Eugene and Mr Dickerson) anything else they believe or do avails them nothing.

In any case, I do not engage in lies or deceit and I take no pleasure in hurting your feelings. I’m sorry.

Michael

 

[MrDickerson]

Wow, you should win an award for the dramatic performance put on in this post!

Please show all the people on this public forum, that you just lied to, where in Catholic teaching Divine Revelation takes a back seat to merely being subject to the Pope.
Where does it say in Catholic teaching that believing in the Trinity or the incarnation is not important, but, merely only being subject to the Pope is??
This post is despicable! You should be banned for this post!

Nah, he won’t…for some reason Eastern schismatics/heretics on these fora always get a free pass…reminds me of the way minorities are often treated in the U.S.

 

[SSTeacher]

Nah, he won’t…for some reason Eastern schismatics/heretics on these fora always get a free pass…reminds me of the way minorities are often treated in the U.S.

I’m a minority living in the U.S. I’ve been here 18 years and I’ve never been given a free pass to anywhere.

Just so’s ya know.

Tearfully,
Mick
:crying:

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, that last little bit was rather disturbingly unncessary. Oh, those darn minorities and their free passes to everything! This has so much to do with the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, you know…

 

[SSTeacher]

Yeah, that last little bit was rather disturbingly unncessary. Oh, those darn minorities and their free passes to everything! This has so much to do with the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, you know…

Hi dzheremi,

Yes, we minorities can be really annoying – especially to those indigenes who regard us last among equals.

Resignedly,
Mick

 

[algebra]

Wow you guys lost me on the technicals of heresy and “valid sacraments”

I have to say though, if the sacraments are valid, there would be nothing heretical about the E.O.

Didn’t Pope John Paul want to reconcile the Churches?

 

[Peter_J]

Hi again,

To everyone reading this threads, posters and lurkers alike, I would like to say that I hope you won’t judge Catholics based on what you’ve read here. To quote a “This Rock” article by Ronald J. Rychlak, “Not every priest, nun, or other Catholic speaks for the Church. Catholicism is a big tent. There are lots of people inside of it, and not all of them are well informed. Some of them are flat-out wrong.”

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter! Thanks for the welcome

I’ve been pursuing other interests less damaging (hopefully) to my spiritual wellbeing, and more important to me personally.

Ah. (I’d wondered if you were on a different forum – I don’t get to other forums much lately, not even the other CAF forums.)

Right now my first personal priority is to master Chinese language.

Ay carumba!

 

[Peter_J]

If this is a matter of certain Faith, there will be a precise enumeration, not just one person’s opinion or another. It will be laid out categorically by some church authority besides yourself, and you should be able to find a reference. Otherwise, I will take your claim to be a bluff.

You need to keep in mind that these things can take quite a while to be settled. After all, the question of which books belong in the New Testament wasn’t settled until the late fourth century (and I won’t even go into the question of which books belong in the Old Testament).

At present, there are a great many Catholics who think that there have only been 2 ex cathedra statements, and there are also a great many Catholics who put the number closer to a dozen. And anything in-between. Will there be a consensus in, say, a century or two? Who knows.

 

[Jean_1958]

Wow you guys lost me on the technicals of heresy and “valid sacraments”

I have to say though, if the sacraments are valid, there would be nothing heretical about the E.O.

Didn’t Pope John Paul want to reconcile the Churches?

Hi algebra.

Please read THIS.

I hope this helps clarify things for you.

God Bless.

Jean

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Nah, he won’t…for some reason Eastern schismatics/heretics on these fora always get a free pass…reminds me of the way minorities are often treated in the U.S.

Yes, I agree! It seems the “mods” (pun intended) on this board give much more leeway to non-catholics who are here to spread their false teachings than to traditional catholics.

Hmm, that does sound familiar . . .

Cheers!

 

[SSTeacher]

It seems the “mods” (pun intended) on this board give much more leeway to non-catholics who are here to spread their false teachings than to traditional catholics.

Hmm, that does sound familiar . . .

Cheers!

Wotcha UKcatholicGuy,

Yours is not an unreasonable comment. But you would agree, wouldn’t you, that it’s quite possible for a grossly misinformed bigot (or similar) with an agenda to masquerade as a Catholic (either Traditionalist or Liberal) and spread his or her false teaching around the Internet?

Put yourself in the position of the Catholic moderator. Wouldn’t you allow non–Catholics (or, at least, those who claim to be non–Catholics) just a little more leeway? After all, from the Catholic viewpoint isn’t it the case that we non–Catholics do not possess the fullness of truth and that therefore perhaps our immortal souls are in danger? So when you came across Catholics posting stuff that displays discourtesy and arrogance, that is misleading and erroneous, and that portrays Catholicism in entirely the wrong light, what would you do? How would you moderate?

I have a son who works very hard, is happily married and who has given me a granddaughter. I’m extremely proud of him. But his elder brother got shot in the head some years ago and after surgery was in a coma for a week – and when he came out of it, he was no longer normal. He still has a metal plate in his head, has speech problems, can’t work, is emotionally unstable, and is very much handicapped or challenged or whatever the correct terminology is these days. So, naturally, I expect less of him than I do his younger brother. His younger brother knows this full well but certainly doesn’t see me as issuing any “free pass.”

Know what I mean, me old china?

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

What your church has done most recently is to take a less important theological speculation (namely that a Christian must be under the theological supervision of the bishop of Rome no matter what to be saved) and turned it into an excuse to damn people. Because of this arrogance on the part of an office holder in the church, this theological opinion has trumped all other dogmas. It does not matter whether one believes in the Holy Trinity and worships properly. It does not matter whether one believes in the bodily incarnation of Christ, and it does not matter if one makes an regular examination of conscience and properly sincerely confesses, participates in the other sacraments or makes other notable personal sacrifices in Faith (even martyrdom!).

Hi again,

I wanted to respond to ^^ this last night, but as it was getting late I decided I’d better wait and come at it with a rested mind.

You speak of this happening recently, but it seems to me it’s the other way around, i.e. that the Catholic Church has recently (at the First Vatican Council, to be specific) set straight a teaching which had been “turned on it head” for centuries. More specifically it clarified that Unam Sanctum doesn’t mean that Orthodox and Protestants are all going to hell, but rather that everyone (whether they be Catholic or non-Catholic) who is going to heaven is subject to the Pope’s authority.

 

[Peter_J]

Wotcha UKcatholicGuy,

Yours is not an unreasonable comment. But you would agree, wouldn’t you, that it’s quite possible for a grossly misinformed bigot (or similar) with an agenda to masquerade as a Catholic (either Traditionalist or Liberal) and spread his or her false teaching around the Internet?

Put yourself in the position of the Catholic moderator. Wouldn’t you allow non–Catholics (or, at least, those who claim to be non–Catholics) just a little more leeway? After all, from the Catholic viewpoint isn’t it the case that we non–Catholics do not possess the fullness of truth and that therefore perhaps our immortal souls are in danger? So when you came across Catholics posting stuff that displays discourtesy and arrogance, that is misleading and erroneous, and that portrays Catholicism in entirely the wrong light, what would you do? How would you moderate?

SSTeacher,

In part I agree with you. Say if a Lutheran came on CAF and said “Lutheranism teaches that there are two persons in Christ”, and a Catholic came on CAF and said “Catholicism teaches that there are two persons in Christ”. Both statements are completely false (Catholicism and Lutheranism both teach that Christ is one person), but I would expect the mods to come down harder on the Catholic than on the Lutheran. Why? Because it’s their job to defend the purity of Catholic doctrine, but it’s not their job to defend the purity of Lutheran doctrine. So, in that sense, I agree with you.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher,

In part I agree with you. Say if a Lutheran came on CAF and said “Lutheranism teaches that there are two persons in Christ”, and a Catholic came on CAF and said “Catholicism teaches that there are two persons in Christ”. Both statements are completely false (Catholicism and Lutheranism both teach that Christ is one person), but I would expect the mods to come down harder on the Catholic than on the Lutheran. Why? Because it’s their job to defend the purity of Catholic doctrine, but it’s not their job to defend the purity of Lutheran doctrine. So, in that sense, I agree with you.

Hi Peter J,

Your example adequately conveys the only sense I had in mind so I should have thought we’d be in total agreement. Is there a sense in which you don’t agree with me, then?

Inquiringly,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi (name removed by moderator),

I very much agree with you about the depth and richness of Orthodox tradition. I experienced the Divine Liturgy this morning. It is very beautiful – almost ethereal. Still, after 2000 years, I guess one ought to expect great beauty and much reverence in Christian worship: Lex orandi lex credendi.

May God grant you many years.
Mick

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Just because a church has valid sacraments does not mean they aren’t heretical.

**Can it have valid sacraments if it heretical ? And will they be fruitful ? BTW, this is a Patristic doctrine: those who swear by the Fathers as the last word in Biblical scholarship, would have to reject a fair amount of what they said, so as to stay in the Church. **​

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter J,

Your example adequately conveys the only sense I had in mind so I should have thought we’d be in total agreement.

Oh. Alrightee then.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi again,

I wanted to respond to ^^ this last night, but as it was getting late I decided I’d better wait and come at it with a rested mind.

You speak of this happening recently, but it seems to me it’s the other way around, i.e. that the Catholic Church has recently (at the First Vatican Council, to be specific) set straight a teaching which had been “turned on it head” for centuries. More specifically it clarified that Unam Sanctum doesn’t mean that Orthodox and Protestants are all going to hell, but rather that everyone (whether they be Catholic or non-Catholic) who is going to heaven is subject to the Pope’s authority.

Hi Peter,

I don’t mean any offense here. I genuinely don’t.

But I have three reactions to what you have posted, I hope you don’t mind:

• Your explanation (it doesn’t mean that non-Catholics are going to hell just that anyone heaven-bound is subject to the Pope! ) sounds a little bit like sophistry. In other words, like playing a semantic game. And that does not address the very clear damnation of the later Cantate Domino.
• It is very clear that Unam Sanctum was actually a political document anyway. Historically it was addressed to Philip the Fair and it was an attempt to make the king of France yield on Italian political/military concerns by threatening the soul of the king. This context is usually forgotten by apologists who like to use the quote out of context for it’s spiritual capital only (the political claim of the Pope collapsed, the Pope’s replacement was one of Philip’s own men and the document was forgotten for a long, long time).
• My third comment is that this explanation you give here is no more acceptable than the other presumed explanation. Universal jurisdiction of the bishop at Rome (as defined by Vat I) cannot be demonstrated historically. It simply never existed. Holy Orthodoxy has no knowledge of it. The newer explanation seems to wish to prop up the claim by saying people were subject to the Papal office even when they did not realize it!
  Look at the duties of the Patriarch of Constantinople today, what he does is all the bishop of Rome ever did in the non-Latin world. Search the canons, these are historical traces of the church of the past and Holy Orthodoxy has no control over their dissemination. There is no copyright on them and the facts cannot be suppressed or hidden from scholars. There are no canons “establishing” anything like a Papacy and none “abolishing” anything like a Papacy after the schism.

The Orthodox church just goes along like it did before, in it’s own muddling conservative way.

Now search the Canons of the Roman Catholic church for comparison. It is peppered throughout with canons defining the duties and privileges of the Papacy. Why in the world would these be necessary now but not then? I have asked in the past but no one can answer for me how old any of these canons are (and they are modified and edited over time by departments of the Curia, not exclusively or even primarily acts of bishops in Councils). It is hard to tell just how old any of them are, but these canons mentioning Papal prerogatives are (as far as I can tell) not traceable into the first millennium.

Peace and all good things my friend,
Michael

 

[Peter_J]

I have three reactions to what you have posted, I hope you don’t mind:

Hmm … I don’t know. Generally I think that Orthodox posters should be seen and not heard, but I guess I could make an exception.

But seriously …

Your explanation (it doesn’t mean that non-Catholics are going to hell just that anyone heaven-bound is subject to the Pope! ) sounds a little bit like sophistry. In other words, like playing a semantic game.

Well again here, I see it more the other way around: that this “semantic game” had been going on for centuries, and the First Vatican Council ended it (or at least made great strides toward ending it).

Specifically, framing papal authority in the form of a threat to peoples’ souls (If you’re not subject to the Pope, then you’re going to hell) is the semantic game; framing it the way Vatican I did (The Pope’s jurisdiction is universal) is not a semantic game but a straightforward statement of what Catholics believe.

It is very clear that Unam Sanctum was actually a political document anyway. Historically it was addressed to Philip the Fair and it was an attempt to make the king of France yield on Italian political/military concerns by threatening the soul of the king.

I think that actually supports my claim that the “semantic game” was played by Catholics centuries ago, and that Vatican I put a stop to it.

My third comment is that this explanation you give here is no more acceptable than the other presumed explanation. Universal jurisdiction of the bishop at Rome (as defined by Vat I) cannot be demonstrated historically. It simply never existed. Holy Orthodoxy has no knowledge of it.

Fair enough. I didn’t really expect that statements I made on an internet discussion forum were going to resolve a long-standing disagreement between the RCC and the EOC.

The newer explanation seems to wish to prop up the claim by saying people were subject to the Papal office even when they did not realize it!

Surely you don’t deny that it’s possible for someone to be subject to authority (papal or otherwise) without ever being aware of it?

Look at the duties of the Patriarch of Constantinople today, what he does is all the bishop of Rome ever did in the non-Latin world. Search the canons, these are historical traces of the church of the past and Holy Orthodoxy has no control over their dissemination. There is no copyright on them and the facts cannot be suppressed or hidden from scholars. There are no canons “establishing” anything like a Papacy and none “abolishing” anything like a Papacy after the schism.

The Orthodox church just goes along like it did before, in it’s own muddling conservative way.

Now search the Canons of the Roman Catholic church for comparison. It is peppered throughout with canons defining the duties and privileges of the Papacy. Why in the world would these be necessary now but not then?

I agree that calls for some sort of explanation. The explanation that a lot of us Catholics favor is this: the Pope has “universal ordinary jurisdiction” as a matter of principle (and as a matter of doctrine), but that he ought to exercise it according to the model given by the first millennium.

Peace and all good things my friend,
Michael

Thanks! Same to you.