Roman Catholic bishops vs Orthodox bishops

[Here_For_Donuts]

I wasn’t arguing who was wrong or right regarding baptism. I was just trying to show that not all bishops took the idea of Rome supremacy seriously back then.

Here’s what strikes me as funny about the doctrine of papal infallibility:

Non-Catholic: “I don’t believe in papal infallibility.”

Catholic: “But you have to because the Church teaches this and always has. And also, Peter, THE FIRST POPE!, was the first bishop of Rome; therefore, all bishops of Rome are his successor, which also makes the bishop of Rome the supreme bishop.”

Non-Catholic: “Yes, I agree that Rome made this claim of supremacy, but such a claim wasn’t a universally accepted belief among all bishops in the early church. The bishops who wanted to elevate Constantinople certainly didn’t view Rome that way. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have attempted such a bold act. Why should I believe in Roman supremacy when many other bishops back then didn’t? A primacy, yes. But not supremacy. In fact, at no time during the first millennium was Rome’s claim to divine supremacy over the whole church actually believed by the whole church.”

Catholic: “Well, if that’s true–and that’s a big if, because, as we all know, Jesus made Peter THE FIRST POPE!, and how could they not know?!–those bishops were wrong.”

Non-Catholic: “Why were those bishops wrong?”

Catholic: “Because Rome has always claimed supremacy.”

Non-Catholic: “But not all of the church accepted the idea.”

Catholic: “But it doesn’t matter because Rome always claimed it was true.”

Non-Catholic: “So…if another bishop claimed a place of importance–say, if the bishop of Constantinople did–we should believe him because he says so?”

Catholic: “No.”

Non-Catholic: “Huh? Why?”

Catholic: “Because Rome has been claiming it for a very long time. And Rome is the See of Peter, THE FIRST POPE!.”

Non-Catholic: “But why should I believe Rome’s claims in the first place?”

Catholic: “Because Rome says so.”

Non-Catholic: “Let’s move on. If I found contradictions in teachings between popes in different eras, would that disprove papal infallibility?”

Catholic: “No.”

Non-Catholic: “What? Why?”

Catholic: “The pope is only infallible when three conditions are met. He has to be speaking (1) as pope (2) to the whole church (3) concerning matters of faith or morality.”

Non-Catholic: “Oh, ok. That sounds reasonable. Can you give me a list of all the times throughout history when this occurred?”

Catholic: “No.”

Non-Catholic: “…Why not?”

Catholic: “Because theologians disagree on when this has or hasn’t happened.”

Non-Catholic:

Catholic: “Are you going to become Catholic yet?”

Non-Catholic: “…What you just said…makes…no sense…”

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

And is this something you figured out, or are you using Scripture and Tradition to guide you, because my understanding is you are using neither, and I willing to bet that your reference point for such a comment is based on canon 28, even though it was rejected in the West, thus it was not UNIVERSALLY accepted by the Church. If you’d like to read some commentary regarding Rome’s primacy, here’s a couple of hints for you:

And here is Bishop of Constantinople, Anatolius writing to Pope Leo about canon 28 and how it came to be, which I think you might find elucidating:

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. **Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. **-- Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

I was thinking ante-Nicene Christianity.

Anatolius’ remarks prove a belief in Roman primacy. Also, they sought Rome’s approval because Rome was one of the patriarchs! All patriarchs had to agree.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Of course he was, and glory to God.

I’m not sure where here_for_donuts got the idea that one must be “visibly united” to the Church to be saved. The Orthodox Church deliberately does not speculate as to the salvation status of people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves outside of the visible Church. We should be praying instead for God to have mercy on them, and worrying more about working out our own salvation (source). This is identical to the Catholic teaching on the same issue, AFAIK (see Section 847 of the Catechism).

The Church once taught differently:

Pope Eugene IV – Papal Bull “Cantate Domino,” from the Council of Florence:

“[The Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,” unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

This seems to meet all the requirements of papal infallibility. He was speaking as pope, he was addressing the Church, and it was matters concerning faith or morality.

So, if you’re Orthodox and you’re consciously aware of what the Catholic Church teaches yet still refuse to become Catholic, you’re going to hell.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Firmilian literally criticizes Stephen for assuming an authority of the Apostles as bishop of Rome. He considers Stephen an arrogant man. It’s clear as day in his letter. He accuses Stephen of falling out of communion with the church and into a state of apostasy. Yes, he literally uses the word apostate when referring to Stephen.

Even in the present day, we have Catholic bishops who call the pope a heretic. Sedevacantists such as Bishop de Castro Mayer have said that the pope has completely put himself outside the church and has lost the papacy. Others like Bishop Lefebvre have said that the pope is still the pope, but he teaches heresy and must be resisted. Both views, while different, are in opposition to the pope, yet neither groups denies papal infallibility or jurisdiction as defined by Vatican I. Would the existence of such people call into question the existence of the Catholic teaching regarding the papacy? If you were going by the actions of groups like the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI etc., you would conclude that there is no solid historical evidence that the twentieth century Church believed in the Vatican I papal dogmas, even though these groups all strongly believe in the Vatican I papal dogmas. Firmilian’s conduct is hardly conclusive since even in our own day we have hundreds of Firmilians running around.

Firmilian is not an unbiased witness regarding the papacy because his writings were in the context of a personal disagreement with the pope. Compare to the SSPX’s disagreements with the popes over the teachings of Vatican II even though they belief that these are valid popes with the charism of infallibility! Even from a Catholic perspective, there have been popes who were wrong about theological issues (John XXII is the classic example) and were corrected by their peers. But Firmilian is an especially poor example because he was wrong and his position had no basis in tradition. Neither he nor Cyprian are venerated for their part in this controversey (particularly because of the contribution to the later Donatist schism).

The Church once taught differently:

Pope Eugene IV – Papal Bull “Cantate Domino,” from the Council of Florence:

“[The Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,” unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

This seems to meet all the requirements of papal infallibility. He was speaking as pope, he was addressing the Church, and it was matters concerning faith or morality.

So, if you’re Orthodox and you’re consciously aware of what the Catholic Church teaches yet still refuse to become Catholic, you’re going to hell.

Even St. Augustine, who said more or less the same thing, acknowledges that people are more or less culpable for schism or heresy depending on their circumstances, as you ackowledge by citing lack of understanding as a mitigaing factor. Since the Catholic Church venerates men who have died outside visible communion with the Church as saints, it couldn’t be correct that the Church declares all those who die visibly outside her walls to be damned.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Even in the present day, we have Catholic bishops who call the pope a heretic. Sedevacantists such as Bishop de Castro Mayer have said that the pope has completely put himself outside the church and has lost the papacy. Others like Bishop Lefebvre have said that the pope is still the pope, but he teaches heresy and must be resisted. Both views, while different, are in opposition to the pope, yet neither groups denies papal infallibility or jurisdiction as defined by Vatican I. Would the existence of such people call into question the existence of the Catholic teaching regarding the papacy? If you were going by the actions of groups like the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI etc., you would conclude that there is no solid historical evidence that the twentieth century Church believed in the Vatican I papal dogmas, even though these groups all strongly believe in the Vatican I papal dogmas. Firmilian’s conduct is hardly conclusive since even in our own day we have hundreds of Firmilians running around.

Firmilian is not an unbiased witness regarding the papacy because his writings were in the context of a personal disagreement with the pope. Compare to the SSPX’s disagreements with the popes over the teachings of Vatican II even though they belief that these are valid popes with the charism of infallibility! Even from a Catholic perspective, there have been popes who were wrong about theological issues (John XXII is the classic example) and were corrected by their peers. But Firmilian is an especially poor example because he was wrong and his position had no basis in tradition. Neither he nor Cyprian are venerated for their part in this controversey (particularly because of the contribution to the later Donatist schism).

Even St. Augustine, who said more or less the same thing, acknowledges that people are more or less culpable for schism or heresy depending on their circumstances, as you ackowledge by citing lack of understanding as a mitigaing factor. Since the Catholic Church venerates men who have died outside visible communion with the Church as saints, it couldn’t be correct that the Church declares all those who die visibly outside her walls to be damned.

Just out of curiosity, were these saints canonized in the years after Vatican II?

 

[frangiuliano115]

The Church once taught differently:

Pope Eugene IV – Papal Bull “Cantate Domino,” from the Council of Florence:

“[The Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,” unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

This seems to meet all the requirements of papal infallibility. He was speaking as pope, he was addressing the Church, and it was matters concerning faith or morality.

So, if you’re Orthodox and you’re consciously aware of what the Catholic Church teaches yet still refuse to become Catholic, you’re going to hell.

Hi HFD,

I made a small comment way back in the beginning to which you didn’t reply. What with all this important papal stuff going on.

Not following along 100%, it’s too complicated for me and, frankly, I don’t care all that much which brings me back to my original question:

Why do you care so much about this? Is it not more important what the doctrines of a church are rather than how it all came about?

It seems to me that the very fact of your above quote and how it is understood today proves that we can’t be too concerned with all this.

I hope the discussion continues - I’m not saying it’s not important.

Just wondering why it’s more important than knowing what any particular church believes in now in order to decide to join it.

I mean, sometimes I find discrepencies or inconsistencies between the CCC and a papal incyclical - like for instance on Luke 16 which I was following on a different thread. In the end - I don’t care! Let’s see what Jesus said about it!

I know this is an aside, if you don’t answer it’s okay.

Fran

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I was thinking ante-Nicene Christianity.

Anatolius’ remarks prove a belief in Roman primacy. Also, they sought Rome’s approval because Rome was one of the patriarchs! All patriarchs had to agree.

Have you considered why council members and Saints appealed to the bishop’s of Rome, after a council’s finding?

Have you considered why Emperor’s of Constantinople required the ratification of the bishop of Rome for the Emperor’s and the Patriarch of Constantinople ruling to be binding upon the whole Church?

An Emperor did not need anyone’s approval to rule his kingdom. But when it affected the Church within his Empire, both heretical and Christian Emperor required the bishop’s Rome approval.

Most importantly, have you considered why the Popes are rarely in attendance during a council? I believe a Pope has only attended two or three councils including Peter’s presence at the council in Jerusalem.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Hi HFD,

I made a small comment way back in the beginning to which you didn’t reply. What with all this important papal stuff going on.

Not following along 100%, it’s too complicated for me and, frankly, I don’t care all that much which brings me back to my original question:

Why do you care so much about this? Is it not more important what the doctrines of a church are rather than how it all came about?

It seems to me that the very fact of your above quote and how it is understood today proves that we can’t be too concerned with all this.

I hope the discussion continues - I’m not saying it’s not important.

Just wondering why it’s more important than knowing what any particular church believes in now in order to decide to join it.

I mean, sometimes I find discrepencies or inconsistencies between the CCC and a papal incyclical - like for instance on Luke 16 which I was following on a different thread. In the end - I don’t care! Let’s see what Jesus said about it!

I know this is an aside, if you don’t answer it’s okay.

Fran

Two main reasons:

1.) All the church fathers teach that there is no hope for those who knowingly deprecate themselves from the true church and join schismatics or heretics. St. Augustine famously said that even if they have the sacraments and apostolic succession, they’re without hope if they are out of communion with he church. Since I know what both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach, and since both believe this, I have to choose the correct church. I can’t claim “ignorance” because I’m fully aware that both churches teach that the other is out of communion.

2.) What worries me about the Roman Catholic Church is what Jesus said: “You will know a tree by its fruit.” During the Great Schism of 1054, the Roman Catholic Church was in the minority separating itself from the majority of Christianity. During the second millennium, they introduced all sorts of doctrines and practices foreign to the church of the first millennium. They horribly persecuted non-Catholics, and when Western European explorers travelled the world, the Catholic Church sanctioned forceful conversion of indigenous populations. The Protestant Reformation largely occurred because of the gross doctrinal and moral evils committed by Catholic leadership. (Looking at things from the Orthodox point of view, the Protestants are just a continuation of what the Catholics had been doing in terms of running from the true apostolic faith.) It seems like post-Vatican II Catholicism is trying to be “friendly” and “inoffensive” to the world. I don’t understand how modern popes can pray with pagans, something so many Christians have been martyred for refusing to do. Until I was a teenager, I thought Pope John Paul II and his Church believed in all religions. I’ve spoken to several priests, and most of them say things like, “oh, we don’t really teach this or that anymore.” It seems as if the Catholic Church is becoming a cesspool of indifferent lukewarm ideology.

There was another thread around here about how ISIS killed Christians. My post was deleted by a moderator because I dared to say the truth about Islam. I don’t understand. It seems as if Catholics want to be friends with the world, but what about being friends with Christ? So many saints and church fathers in history had no qualms about calling out evil, and now the Catholic Church teaches that we have to all hold hands and “tolerate” paganism and heresy?

Here’s the sort of Pope a post- Vatican II Church has:

veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/pope-francis-it-may-be-a-heresy-but-i-agree-with-the-devil-that-all-christians-are-one/

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Have you considered why council members and Saints appealed to the bishop’s of Rome, after a council’s finding?

Have you considered why Emperor’s of Constantinople required the ratification of the bishop of Rome for the Emperor’s and the Patriarch of Constantinople ruling to be binding upon the whole Church?

An Emperor did not need anyone’s approval to rule his kingdom. But when it affected the Church within his Empire, both heretical and Christian Emperor required the bishop’s Rome approval.

Emperors often acted against the wish of Roman bishops. This has been addressed many times over by non-Catholics and others who aren’t clouded by belief in papal infallibility. No matter how times I try to show the truth, you’ll misinterpret. Constantine was a pagan. His reasons for convening Nicea were not Christian at all; he believed that the Christian God was one of many alongside the Greek gods, and that by appeasing His followers and bringing peace to them, He would relent from destroying Rome.

Look at it this way. The pagan emperor Constantine’s goal was Christian unity. The concept of a church-wide ecumenical council was HIS invention. He didn’t care who was right or wrong regarding doctrine. His plan was to physically enforce the doctrines of the majority of bishops, which is EXACTLY what he did after the council was done.

Common sense question:

If Emperor Constantine believed that the Church saw Rome as the supreme head, then wouldn’t it have been much easier and more practical to simply ask the Church of Rome for the correct doctrines and then enforce those? Why go through the trouble of a massive council with hundreds of bishops from all over the empire?

And why did Constantine have a Spanish bishop preside over the council? Why not Rome, or a representative of Rome?

I’ll give you a counter example against papal supremacy:

When Emperor Theodosius convened the Council of Constantinople, Rome had no hand in the decision. (This was typical of the early ecumenical councils.) All of he bishops participating were from the east. In fact, two of the three bishops presiding over the council were considered illegitimate by Rome. Pope Damasus complained to the Emperor and the bishops of the council to remove them. But guess what? The bishops and Emperor completely ignored his cries and continued on with business.

This was the council that created the infamous Canon 28, declaring Rome’s place of primacy among the patriarchs due to its honor as the old imperial capital. A year later, Damasus, in protest, held a council in Rome and declared that Rome’s primacy is divine and not a decision by council.

So, as usual, it was only the west that believed in divinely-ordained papal supremacy.

By the way, the Council of Constantinople wasn’t even declared ecumenical until decades later. So much for a “pope’s approval.”

My question is why do Catholics today have a hard time differentiating between primacy and supremacy? The rest of the church afforded Rome a place of primacy, but they certainly didn’t believe in a universal supremacy/jurisdiction. The eastern patriarchs held Rome to be a first among equals. They deferred to him and gave him due honor, but that’s all. They believed Rome’s primacy was a human honor and nothing more.

 

[Genesis315]

Despite consistent Roman claims to authority, the Church never condemned it as a heresy. Anyway, this whole thread is proof of why the Roman claims must be true. Both sides can pile up evidence and historical anomalies and whatnot. How does the Church solves such disputes? What is commonly put forth nowadays as the EO system goes like this:

If there is a serious doctrinal dispute as to what is the orthodox doctrine, a Council can be convened to pass judgment on it.

However, this judgment is not itself authoritative, but is really more of a submission to the whole Church for its judgment over some nebulous time period. Who is the whole Church we should look to? All orthodox believers. Who are orthodox believers? Those who believe the orthodox doctrines. But the whole point of the Council was to judge what is the orthodox doctrine–under this system, you can’t determine the orthodox doctrine without looking to orthodox believers–but you need to know the orthodox doctrine to determine who are the orthodox believers. In other words, the EO system is a meaningless tautology: when all who agree on the orthodox belief agree on the orthodox belief, then you know it is the orthodox belief. And I don’t know of any of the early Councils that was accepted by the whole Church–various Churches, even patriarchates, condemned them and were henceforth considered outside the Church by those who obeyed the Council. Maybe the OOs have been right all along?

The system of an authoritative Church only makes sense when there is a visibly identifiable and fixed reference point, of which the See of Rome is the only entity with any kind of historical support to being that point.

The EO system seems instead as a later belief developed to disavow a bunch of their own synods, including the reunion Councils which all agreed with Rome. During their recent Palamite renewal movement (which included a focus on the Greek Fathers, but an exclusion of the Latin Fathers), any thing with even the odor of Latinity was purged and preceding centuries which saw similar scholastic development as that in the Catholic Church was rejected as a “Western Captivity.” This supposed “Captivity” lasted in the GOC even until the 1950s.

St. Leo explained well why Councils were a good idea even when the Pope could or had already ruled (it’s why the Catholic Church has continued to have such Councils):
St. Leo the Great:

On the return of our brothers and fellow priests, whom the See of the blessed Peter sent to the holy council, we ascertained, beloved, the victory you and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy of Nestorius, as well as over the madness of Eutyches. Wherefore we make our boast in the Lord, singing with the prophet: “our help is in the name of the Lord, who has made heaven and earth :” who has suffered us to sustain no harm in the person of our brethren, but has corroborated by the irrevocable assent of the whole brotherhood what He had already laid down through our ministry: to show that, what had been first formulated by the foremost See of Christendom, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, had truly proceeded from Himself: that in this, too, the members may be at one with the Head. And herein our cause for rejoicing grows greater when we see that the more fiercely the foe assailed Christ’s servants, the more did he afflict himself. For lest the assent of other Sees to that which the Lord of all has appointed to take precedence of the rest might seem mere complaisance, or lest any other evil suspicion might creep in, some were found to dispute our decisions before they were finally accepted. And while some, instigated by the author of the disagreement, rush forward into a warfare of contradictions, a greater good results through his fall under the guiding hand of the Author of all goodness. For the gifts of God’s grace are sweeter to us when they are gained with mighty efforts: and uninterrupted peace is wont to seem a lesser good than one that is restored by labours. Moreover, the Truth itself shines more brightly, and is more bravely maintained when what the Faith had already taught is afterwards confirmed by further inquiry. And still further, the good name of the priestly office gains much in lustre where the authority of the highest is preserved without it being thought that the liberty of the lower ranks has been at all infringed. And the result of a discussion contributes to the greater glory of God when the debaters exert themselves with confidence in overcoming the gainsayers: that what of itself is shown wrong may not seem to be passed over in prejudicial silence.

newadvent.org/fathers/3604120.htm

As for the persecution of heretics, you need to delve a little more into the history of the Church before the schism and the EO history after it–it’s on all sides. Likewise, so is the interreligious niceities these days–look who’s right there with JPII:

http://d2jkk5z9de9jwi.cloudfront.net/content/uploads/2012/03/-15305.jpg

In fact, most of the EO Churches are members of the WCC, whereas the Catholic Church is not.

All this is not to say there won’t be ignorant members of either Church or members of either Church that violate their own principles–man is fallen so ignorance and sin will always be found everywhere. So ultimately it is the principles that must be tested. At least the Catholic Church can put out a Catechism when there is confusion. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to determine what EO principles actually are at any given moment, so we have to deal with what is put forth by whoever you are talking to at the time–they don’t have the kind of objective source to turn to to see if the person knows what they’re talking about.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Well, there’s going to be an Orthodox Ecumenical Council next year.

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/03/at-last-a-council-for-the-ages

All fourteen patriarchs and many bishops will attend to discuss various matters facing the church in the modern world.

I think it’s telling that they aren’t really going to discuss important theological disagreements.

Maybe because there aren’t any…?

The only patriarch who won’t be in attendance is the pope, of course.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Two main reasons:

1.) All the church fathers teach that there is no hope for those who knowingly deprecate themselves from the true church and join schismatics or heretics. St. Augustine famously said that even if they have the sacraments and apostolic succession, they’re without hope if they are out of communion with he church. Since I know what both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach, and since both believe this, I have to choose the correct church. I can’t claim “ignorance” because I’m fully aware that both churches teach that the other is out of communion.

2.) What worries me about the Roman Catholic Church is what Jesus said: “You will know a tree by its fruit.” During the Great Schism of 1054, the Roman Catholic Church was in the minority separating itself from the majority of Christianity. During the second millennium, they introduced all sorts of doctrines and practices foreign to the church of the first millennium. They horribly persecuted non-Catholics, and when Western European explorers travelled the world, the Catholic Church sanctioned forceful conversion of indigenous populations. The Protestant Reformation largely occurred because of the gross doctrinal and moral evils committed by Catholic leadership. (Looking at things from the Orthodox point of view, the Protestants are just a continuation of what the Catholics had been doing in terms of running from the true apostolic faith.) It seems like post-Vatican II Catholicism is trying to be “friendly” and “inoffensive” to the world. I don’t understand how modern popes can pray with pagans, something so many Christians have been martyred for refusing to do. Until I was a teenager, I thought Pope John Paul II and his Church believed in all religions. I’ve spoken to several priests, and most of them say things like, “oh, we don’t really teach this or that anymore.” It seems as if the Catholic Church is becoming a cesspool of indifferent lukewarm ideology.

There was another thread around here about how ISIS killed Christians. My post was deleted by a moderator because I dared to say the truth about Islam. I don’t understand. It seems as if Catholics want to be friends with the world, but what about being friends with Christ? So many saints and church fathers in history had no qualms about calling out evil, and now the Catholic Church teaches that we have to all hold hands and “tolerate” paganism and heresy?

Here’s the sort of Pope a post- Vatican II Church has:

veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/pope-francis-it-may-be-a-heresy-but-i-agree-with-the-devil-that-all-christians-are-one/

Thanks for the reply.

And so, it is as I thought. It’s soooo difficult to know what the catholic church teaches.
It used to teach what you say in your pp 1. If you read the CCC it doesn’t teach this anymore. It only says that those outside the church, but christian, are saved but do not have the “fullness” of the faith. For instance the CCC speaks to this, no. 817-818-832, no 846 might be of particular interest to you: Outside the Church There Is No Salvation. It explains that actually there is.

So the whole idea of “out of communion” seems a bit antiquated to me. Why would anyone want to believe such a narrow and limiting doctrine? Is this what Jesus really meant? Did He not know there would be schisms?

I agree with your entire second pp. except the part about protestants. Your initial observation is correct, IMO, that they wanted to separate from doctrinal errors made by the catholic church - salvation by works, a big one. The continuation confuses me. A continuation of what catholics had been doing by running from apostolic faith. It seems to me that it’s what they wanted to get back to. Back to some kind of “purity” of faith in Jesus and not in the catholic church.

You’re right on about everything else. Revelation 3:14-16. A lukewarm church is not a good church. In defense of the pope, he did say that a war with extremists in the Middle East would be a just war.

Watched the video with Pope Francis. In spanish he said he was going to say something “insensitive” not “controversial”. He did use the term “heretical”. But, lo and behold, I agreed with him! I might be ex-communicated by some of my very conservative friends but I’m repeating what I said in my above post: I’m going to keep my eyes on Jesus and not care too much about the church.

I do agree with the pope that we are one body: church = an assembly, the called-out ones. Isn’t that what we are??

The only thing that worries me about him is that he sounds like he’s headed for a one world religion. Pretty scary stuff.

Anyway, I’ll let you get back to your very intense and deeply intellectual posts.

I pray you find a comfortable home in which to worship God.

Fran
Just saw your post re the ecumenical council next year. You make an interesting point re theological difference not existing. I’m planning on reading a book on orthodoxy since I know so little about it.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Of course, the mere fact that changes take place is not such a good sign!

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

The Catholic Church contradicts itself on what it has taught over the years. At one time, it taught that ecclesiastical unity with the Pope before one’s death was necessary for ALL heretic/schismatic/Jew/pagan people. After Vatican II, it teaches a feel-good new-agey idea that heretics/schismatics/Jews/pagans don’t need to be ecclesiastically unified with the Pope before death.

This one contradiction alone is proof that Rome is not infallible. There are other contradictions, but this is the most famous one. Why should I accept that the current catechism is infallible but not a papal bull stating a contradictory teaching?

The fact that Catholic theologians can’t even determine, much less agree, when popes have spoken infallibly is absolutely laughable and goes to show that they wish to claim infallibility for their pope yet don’t want to be responsible for any actual declarations. Calling this anything other than a cop-out is an insult to reason.

Catholic theology has gotten itself tangled to the point that it goes something like this:

We’re only infallible during those times we don’t contradict ourselves. Oh, and we don’t know when this or may not be. And those many times we do introduce new ideas or contradict ourselves, we call it “doctrinal development.” And nevermind the fact that the Catholic Church today is a completely different religion than it was a few decades ago, and that a Catholic from 1388 and 1942 have more in common than a Catholic from 1942 and 1972. Amen.

:bowdown: :hypno:

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Catholic Church contradicts itself on what it has taught over the years. At one time, it taught that ecclesiastical unity with the Pope before one’s death was necessary for ALL heretic/schismatic/Jew/pagan people. After Vatican II, it teaches a feel-good new-agey idea that heretics/schismatics/Jews/pagans don’t need to be ecclesiastically unified with the Pope before death.

This one contradiction alone is proof that Rome is not infallible. There are other contradictions, but this is the most famous one. Why should I accept that the current catechism is infallible but not a papal bull stating a contradictory teaching?

The fact that Catholic theologians can’t even determine, much less agree, when popes have spoken infallibly is absolutely laughable and goes to show that they wish to claim infallibility for their pope yet don’t want to be responsible for any actual declarations. Calling this anything other than a cop-out is an insult to reason.

Catholic theology has gotten itself tangled to the point that it goes something like this:

We’re only infallible during those times we don’t contradict ourselves. Oh, and we don’t know when this or may not be. And those many times we do introduce new ideas or contradict ourselves, we call it “doctrinal development.” And nevermind the fact that the Catholic Church today is a completely different religion than it was a few decades ago, and that a Catholic from 1388 and 1942 have more in common than a Catholic from 1942 and 1972. Amen.

:bowdown: :hypno:

This is a caricature that Jack Chick or James White would appreciate. However, it isn’t very accurate nor helpful. That all must be united to the Roman Pontiff for salvation was stated, however to whom, and when? Was it without any clarification or exception? Besides, for someone considering Orthodoxy - paradoxes and some conflict of past determinations must be given - as it is everywhere. To say this about Rome and prefer Orthodoxy for “more consistency” is a bit like criticizing wine for alcohol content and drinking whiskey.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

I think anyone who is honest can see the evil of Vatican II. The church used to preach the necessity of being Catholic and adhering to orthodox teaching, and there was a much greater emphasis to evangelize.

The Vatican II religion avoids discussion of evangelization and heresy, treating them as “old-fashioned.” The Vatican II religion is all about ecumenism and going with the flow of the world.

Churches in the Vatican II religion are a lot less respectful of the sacred and a lot emptier…

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

This is a caricature that Jack Chick or James White would appreciate. However, it isn’t very accurate nor helpful. That all must be united to the Roman Pontiff for salvation was stated, however to whom, and when? Was it without any clarification or exception? Besides, for someone considering Orthodoxy - paradoxes and some conflict of past determinations must be given - as it is everywhere. To say this about Rome and prefer Orthodoxy for “more consistency” is a bit like criticizing wine for alcohol content and drinking whiskey.

Where to begin?

1.) Pope Urban IV, papal bull Cantate Domino:

The Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels," unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the** unity of the ecclesiastical body** is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

2.) Pope Boniface VIII, papal bull Unam Sanctam:

We are compelled, our faith urging us, to believe and to hold; and we do firmly believe and simply confess; that there is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation or remission of sins; her Spouse proclaiming it in the canticles, “My dove, my undefiled is but one, she is the choice one of her that bore her;” which represents one mystical body, of which body the head is Christ, but of Christ, God. In this Church there is one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism. There was one ark of Noah, indeed, at the time of the flood, symbolizing one Church; and this being finished in one cubit had, namely, one Noah as helmsman and commander. And, with the exception of this ark, all things existing upon the earth were, as we read, destroyed.

3.) Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos:

**In this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. **Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the Protestant reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful?” Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of Faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.

So…

Pope Pius XI literally said that the Orthodox and Protestants will not have salvation unless they return to the visible Catholic Church.

If Pope Francis said that exact same thing today, in those exact same words, the world would accuse him of “bigotry” and “intolerance” towards other religions.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Where to begin?

1.) Pope Urban IV, papal bull Cantate Domino:

The Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels," unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the** unity of the ecclesiastical body** is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

2.) Pope Boniface VIII, papal bull Unam Sanctam:

We are compelled, our faith urging us, to believe and to hold; and we do firmly believe and simply confess; that there is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation or remission of sins; her Spouse proclaiming it in the canticles, “My dove, my undefiled is but one, she is the choice one of her that bore her;” which represents one mystical body, of which body the head is Christ, but of Christ, God. In this Church there is one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism. There was one ark of Noah, indeed, at the time of the flood, symbolizing one Church; and this being finished in one cubit had, namely, one Noah as helmsman and commander. And, with the exception of this ark, all things existing upon the earth were, as we read, destroyed.

3.) Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos:

**In this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. **Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the Protestant reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful?” Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of Faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.

So…

Pope Pius XI literally said that the children of the Orthodox and Protestants will not have salvation unless they return to the visible Catholic Church.

If Pope Francis said that exact same thing today, in those exact same words, the world would accuse him of “bigotry” and “intolerance” towards other religions.

And this is the reason that the Roman Catholic Church is severely heterodox .

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Somebody should use this as their signature:

*“It is an error in a matter of divine truth to imagine the Church as invisible, by which many Christian communities, although they differ from each other in their faith, are united by a bond that is invisible to the senses.” *–Pope Pius XII

Maybe the Sedevacantists are right? Maybe all the private revelations about the Vatican having a heretical pope and a false religion are true?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Somebody should use this as their signature:

*“It is an error in a matter of divine truth to imagine the Church as invisible, by which many Christian communities, although they differ from each other in their faith, are united by a bond that is invisible to the senses.” *–Pope Pius XII

Maybe the Sedevacantists are right? Maybe all the private revelations about the Vatican having a heretical pope and a false religion are true?

This quote sounds exactly like what all Orthodox bishops teach