Roman Catholic bishops vs Orthodox bishops

[frangiuliano115]

Actually, the Body of Christ did exist back then. It comes from the Epistles. Tychonius of Africa was the first Church Father to write extensively on the issue, and he had a tremendous influence on Augustine’s thought.

This is very interesting and proves my point even more.

Don’t know Tychonius of Africa but I hear he was a church father. I’ll take your word that The Body of Christ existed back then (early 100’s if he’s before Augustine 300?). I’m wondering if I can assume that you mean it the same way I do. I think you do.

So what happened between 300 (?) Vatican II to change the catholic church’s position to say that if you weren’t catholic, you weren’t saved?? After VII the position changed and became more accepting of those outside the church (Rome).

Don’t expect you to really answer that - although you probably could! - but this is what I mean about trusting MAN.

Institutions are always changing - always new enlightenments and revealed doctrines.
I have to wonder what’s next. And I’m catholic –

Fran

 

[josie_L]

Catholics In Name Only, maybe.

Like my whole family.

I wasn’t even baptized or raised in a religious household. I suspect this is typical for 90% of Catholic families.

What about the Orthodox throughout the world are they also Orthodox in name only or is this just something that afflicts 90% of Catholics??

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t mean to appear patronizing, but it seems as if Catholics look at history with Roman Catholic revisionist glasses.

I won’t deny that it is possible for someone to be Roman Catholic and be a revisionist. Similarly, someone could be Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian (or any of the other “Non-Catholic Religions”) and be a revisionist.

It’s not restricted to any one particular group (although I think the internet is a factor – one reason that I try to limit my forum participation to, say, 23 hours a day or so).

BTW, you might like this.

 

[Genesis315]

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?

Likely because you’re not interpreting it according to the mind of the Church. People can look back at past texts and read them differently, just like with Scripture. The Church acknowledged the salvation of those not explicitly Catholic prior to and after those definitions you are interpreting more strictly. Anyways, the EO Churches also acknowledge that non-EO people can be saved too (at least as far as I can tell), so whatever beef you have here, you also have with them.

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.

I’m not sure how this is any different from the EO Churches not agreeing on how many ecumenical Councils there are or not even being allowed to agree until after some unknown period of time.

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:

The same accusation can be leveled at the EO Churches. I think you need to do more research into their theological history. And they don’t even argue that their flip flops are indeed actually consistent–they just say they were corrupted by the Latins for centuries and centuries. Who knows, maybe later they’ll say they were corrupted now too

You seem to have an idealized idea of the EO Churches. All of your problems with Catholicism can be laid at their feet too.

 

[Genesis315]

How one determines what is Truth is through careful prayer and discernment. In other words, a theological argument must justify itself. The process does not justify the argument. That’s how I chose Orthodoxy over OO, etc.

So what’s the point of a Council and why are only bishops invited to formally participate? Why did the Councils think they could immediately anathematize those that disagreed? Shouldn’t they have just told everyone to prayerfully discern if their arguments were correct or not? The OOs prayerfully discerned that they were not. Last I checked, the EO Churches don’t think prayerful dissent is a good thing…

 

[pablope]

“The Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims…”

The pope was speaking (1) ex cathedra (2) to the whole church (3) on matters concerning faith or morality.

Let’s just cut to the chase. Can you provide a definitive list of infallible papal teachings from the past 2,000 years that all Catholics agree on?
?

You want to start, the list will take your whole lifetime…I will give you two, from Peter himself:

Matt 16:
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Then Jesus renames him Cephas/Peter/Rock:

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Acts 11:

15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with[a] water, but you will be baptized with** the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

And Peter reiterates and repeats at the council of Jerusalem:

Acts 15

7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”****

 

[pablope]

The Papacy as we understand it today is an invention of the Middle Ages. According to modern Catholic theology, all are subject to the pontiff and nobody is allowed to question him in any way whatsoever, because to do so is to question God.

Tl.

Really? Then you should ask why these Eastern Bishops acknowledged the apostic character of Rome:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

The reconciliation was made in the reign of Pope Hormisdas (514-23) when the Eastern Bishops signed the so-called Libellus Hormisdae which contained a clear definition of the Roman primacy in matters of faith. It is an important document recalling the promise of the Lord given to Peter (Matt. 16:18 f.) and declaring that “in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept immaculate” and that in it "persists the total and true strength of the Christian religion."22 Some of the Eastern prelates may have signed the Libellus with mixed feelings, for never before had they read such a clear definition of Roman primacy, but even the Patriarch John signed it. They objected only to certain declarations of Gelasius which threatened the autonomous status of their Church. The Libellus dealt only with questions of dogma in which Rome had always proved to be a staunch defender of the Orthodox faith.

 

[pablope]

Maybe the pope really is the seat of the antichrist. He “sits in the temple as God.” I recall reading Orthodox saints who’ve prophecied along those lines.

So…could you cite those Orthodox saints? And when they referred to the pope as the anti-Christ, where they doing it in spirit of love and charity or hatred, anger and animosity towards the pope of their day?

And you since you are calling the pope the seat of the anti-christ…so you are agreeing with their hatred, anger, and animosity towards the pope too?

 

[josie_L]

So…could you cite those Orthodox saints? And when they referred to the pope as the anti-Christ, where they doing it in spirit of love and charity or hatred, anger and animosity towards the pope of their day?

And you since you are calling the pope the seat of the anti-christ…so you are agreeing with their hatred, anger, and animosity towards the pope too?

I can’t believe an Orthodox saint would say this, but nevertheless it proves nothing if they did.

 

[josie_L]

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.

Firmillian thought the Pope was heretical or at least in error, hence, his diatribe, i.e., he was not attacking papal supremacy rather he was attacking him for his perceived errors, as well as the disunity he believed he was fomenting. Here are parts of his letter:

1. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine layer. He who concedes and gives up to heretics in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what else does he do but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar and sacrifice.

1. How carefully has Stephen fulfilled these salutary commands and warnings of the apostle, keeping in the first place lowliness of mind and meekness! For what is more lowly or meek than to have disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of them in various kinds of discord: at one time with the eastern churches, as we are sure you know; at another time with yon who are in the south, from whom he received bishops as messengers sufficiently patiently and meekly not to receive them even to the speech of an ordinary conference; and even more, so mindful of love and charity as to command the entire fraternity, that no one should receive them into his house, so that not only peace and communion, but also a shelter and entertainment, were denied to them when they came! This is to have kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to cut himself off from the unity of love, and to make himself a stranger in all respects from his brethren, and to rebel against the sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord! With such a man can there be one Spirit and one body, in whom perchance there is not even one mind, so slippery, and shifting, and uncertain is it?

 

[josie_L]

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.

There are very few councils wherein all Patriarchs agreed, in fact, it was the patriarchs themselves who were for the most part embroiled in heresy, hence, not all patriarchs had to agree. Moreover, it was absolutely necessary for the pope in Rome to confirm said councils because not only was he was leader of the Church, but he was the only patriarch of the West.

p.s. Canon 28 was not universally accepted by the Church, hence, it could not be as the Orthodox believed, binding.

 

[Rohzek]

Moreover, it was absolutely necessary for the pope in Rome to confirm said councils because not only was he was leader of the Church, but he was the only patriarch of the West.

This is not true. There are plenty of canons and practices on record where no one cared if the pope approved or not. The Council of Trullo is a good example, for better and for worse I might add.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

I find this troublesome. Basically your argument appears to boil down to “how can the Orthodox robotically discern the truth without contemplating it?” The answer, of course, is simply that we cannot do so, and that I can find nothing in the Scriptures or the Tradition which indicates that the Lord intended to leave us with a system which could grant us absolute epistemological certainty that a certain proposition concerning the faith is true.

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.

That is, of course, your own assertion. I think if you look back to the fathers, you will find that it is not so clear when exactly a synod is regarded as being universally authoritative and when it is not. For example, the council of Trullo was regarded in the East as being binding, despite its failure to win papal approval (this is why with the exception of a few figures such as St. Photius, the East has rather consistently held that the Armenians and other Non-Chalcedonians should have to abandon practices which contravene the Synod of Trullo for a union to take place). Conversely, the Second Council of Constantinople failed to gain the approval of several Western sees in Northern Italy and Illyria, despite having secured papal approval (though very reluctant papal approval). The so-called reunion synods with Rome never even gained universal acceptance in the East, so to allege that there needed to be a rationale for “disavowing” seems rather disingenuous. The union effected at Second Lyons could hardly be called a conciliar decision. It was a diplomatic agreement which the emperor then attempted to force upon the church with (explaining why the union lasted only until the death of Michael VIII). Florence likewise was not accepted by The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Only Constantinople accepted, and it did so partially because the Emperor made approving of the council a prerequisite for securing his approval (since according to custom, the Emperor had the right of rejecting candidates for patriarch).

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

A mote in the eye compared to the beam that is the Nouvelle Théologie. Thomism has been under the captivity of Thomists since its inception as a school of thought, if I am to believe the key figures of the Nouvelle Théologie like Henri de Lubac.

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

It might as well be. In fact, the RCC goes even further insofar as it is perhaps the largest participant in non-Christian ecumenism.

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.

Sure we do. We have the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, of local synods, the writings of the fathers, and above all, the Scriptures. Much like Roman Catholic dogmatists, we also have dogmatists (Pomazansky comes to mind) who likewise teach that we ought to assess opinions based on how well they accord with the sources of dogma within the Church. Catechisms are merely convenient vehicles for conveying these sources of dogma to the faithful, but catechisms aren’t binding in the way that the dogmatic sources they quote are binding, nor are they the end all be all of the Christian faith. Even the CCC, I would argue, does not adequately equip the faithful for assessing whether an opinion is allowable within the present dogmatic framework of the Roman Catholic Church, but rather it introduces them to what might be regarded as the most common opinion on certain subjects.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The same accusation can be leveled at the EO Churches. I think you need to do more research into their theological history. And they don’t even argue that their flip flops are indeed actually consistent–they just say they were corrupted by the Latins for centuries and centuries. Who knows, maybe later they’ll say they were corrupted now too

Perhaps you could stand to do more research as well. You generalize far too hastily in taking the thought pioneered by one school of academic theology (and interestingly enough, it was the Paris school, which developed along side the Nouvelle Théologie which likewise would make many similar claims about Roman Catholic theology) to be representative of Orthodoxy as a whole. Within contemporary academic theology one may find many differing assessments of Greek and Russian theological output after the fall of Constantinople, just as one might find within Roman Catholicism many different assessments of Bonaventure’s or Torquemada’s legacy and influence upon scholasticsm.

 

[josie_L]

This is not true. There are plenty of canons and practices on record where no one cared if the pope approved or not. The Council of Trullo is a good example, for better and for worse I might add.

The council of Trullo was never accepted as ecumenical by the whole church, i.e., you are viewing history anachronistically.