The Dumbest thing that I have asked so far...

[twb1621]

LoL! You are wasting your time. Everyone knows that the True Apostolic Church is catholic and orthodox.

May you find your way back home to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church—the Holy Orthodox Church.

If you research this historically you will learn what happened but you are wrong in your conclusion regardless of where you came up with it. I will say without doubt that both churches originated from the same one Catholic Church and for the most part both have and support very much the same beliefs. Both Churches have been in discussions for years off and on regarding resolving the issues that lead to the seperation. The Orthodox Church however has recently been negotiating with the papacy of the Catholic Church to have the excommunication from the Catholic Church rescinded so both can reunite. I hope this helps you.

 

[Mickey]

If you research this historically you will learn what happened but you are wrong in your conclusion regardless of where you came up with it. I will say without doubt that both churches originated from the same one Catholic Church and for the most part both have very much the same beliefs. The Orthodox Church however has recently been negotiating with the papacy to have the excommunication from the Catholic Church rescinded so both can reunite. I hope this helps you.

You need to study more–preferably unbiased sources.

There is much to the history that you are unaware of.

And the mutual excommunications were lifted many years ago. But until Rome returns to Holy Orthodoxy nothing will change.

 

[Mickey]

No disrespect to you intended but you may believe as you choose

Thank you. I stand with Holy Orthodoxy in my belief that the Latin Catholic Church went into schism from the Apostolic faith.

Through the dogma of “Infallibility” the Western church lost its spiritual freedom. It lost its beauty and balance, and was deprived of the wealth of the grace of the Holy Spirit, the presence of Christ- from spirit and soul ended up a dead body. We are truly grieved for the injustice done to the church and we pray from the bottom of our hearts that the Holy Spirit illumine the mind and the heart of the Most Blessed Pontiff to have him return to the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH that which he took from her, something that should never have taken place.
St. Nektarios of Aegina

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc/progress.gif​

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc/progress.gif[/RIGHT]

 

[twb1621]

Thank you. I stand with Holy Orthodoxy in my belief that the Latin Catholic Church went into schism from the Apostolic faith.

Through the dogma of “Infallibility” the Western church lost its spiritual freedom. It lost its beauty and balance, and was deprived of the wealth of the grace of the Holy Spirit, the presence of Christ- from spirit and soul ended up a dead body. We are truly grieved for the injustice done to the church and we pray from the bottom of our hearts that the Holy Spirit illumine the mind and the heart of the Most Blessed Pontiff to have him return to the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH that which he took from her, something that should never have taken place.
St. Nektarios of Aegina

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc/progress.gif​

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc/progress.gif[/RIGHT]

Well , then you explain to me how it is the pope (in Rome) excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius (leader of the Eastern branch) in 1054 before Cerularius could respond… And by the way, this is a non-biased source that was backed up by other verifying resources. And I would not base your support on a a saint who was not even born until 1845 or 1846. That is 800 years after all this took place and this saint can certainly not be considered non-bios as you say we should refer to.

 

[Mickey]

Well , then you explain to me how it is the pope (in Rome) excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius (leader of the Eastern branch) in 1054 before Cerularius could respond.

And what does that have to do with the price of oranges?

The mutual excommunications were lift byPope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I

 

[twb1621]

And what does that have to do with the price of oranges?
One real good reason as to what it has to do with is the following;
“Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has jurisdiction in the forum externum, properly so called, can excommunicate, but only his own subjects.”
The orthodox church was excommunicated by the pope who had the power over all the church. Michael Cerularius leader of the Eastern branch territorially but never considered a pope in the seat of saint Peter.
The mutual excommunications were lift byPope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I

 

[twb1621]

And what does that have to do with the price of oranges?

The mutual excommunications were lift byPope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I

This is the declaration. As I said, it has been in negotiations for many years. It did not rescind the excommunication and that is what is being negotiated.

COMMON DECLARATION
OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I

At the end of the visit of the Patriarch Athenagoras to Pope Paul VI, the following joint declaration was published:

Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I give thanks in the Holy Spirit to God, the author and finisher of all good works, for enabling them to meet once again in the holy city of Rome in order to pray together with the Bishops of the Synod of the Roman Catholic Church and with the faithful people of this city, to greet one another with a kiss of peace, and to converse together in a spirit of charity and brotherly frankness.

While recognizing that there is still a long way to go on the road toward the unity of all Christians and that between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church there still remain points to clarify and obstacles to surmount before attaining that unity in the profession of faith necessary for re-establishing full communion, they rejoice in the fact that their meeting was able to contribute to their Churches rediscovering themselves still more as sister Churches.

In the prayers they offered, in their public statements and in their private conversation, the Pope and the Patriarch wished to emphasize their conviction that an essential element in the restoration of full communion between the Roman Catholic Church on the one side and the Orthodox Church on the other, is to be found within the framework of the renewal of the Church and of Christians in fidelity to the traditions of the Fathers and to the inspirations of the Holy Spirit Who remains always with the Church.

They recognize that the true dialogue of charity, which should be at the basis of all relations between themselves and between their Churches, must be rooted in total fidelity to the one Lord Jesus Christ and in mutual respect for each one’s traditions. Every element which can strengthen the bonds of charity, of communion, and of common action is a cause for spiritual rejoicing and should be promoted; anything which can harm this charity, communion and common action is to be eliminated with the grace of God and the creative strength of the Holy Spirit.

Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I are convinced that the dialogue of charity between their Churches must bear fruits of a cooperation which would not be self-seeking, in the field of common action at the pastoral, social and intellectual levels, with mutual respect for each one’s fidelity to his own Church. They desire that regular and profound contacts may be maintained between Catholic and Orthodox pastors for the good of their faithful. The Roman Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate are ready to study concrete ways of solving pastoral problems, especially those connected with marriages between Catholics and Orthodox. They hope for better cooperation in works of charity, in aid to refugees and those who are suffering and in the promotion of justice and peace in the world.

In order to prepare fruitful contacts between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, the Pope and the Patriarch give their blessing and pastoral support to all efforts for cooperation between Catholic and Orthodox scholars in the fields of historical studies, of studies in the traditions of the Churches, of patristics, of liturgy and of a presentation of the Gospel which corresponds at one and the same time with the authentic message of the Lord and with the needs and hopes of today’s world. The spirit which should inspire these efforts is one of loyalty to truth and of mutual understanding, with an effective desire to avoid the bitterness of the past and every kind of spiritual or intellectual domination.

Paul VI and Athenagoras I remind government authorities and all the world’s peoples of the thirst for peace and justice which lies in the hearts of all men. In the name of the Lord, they implore them to seek out every means to promote this peace and this justice in all countries of the world.

28 October 1967

 

[twb1621]

And what does that have to do with the price of oranges?

The mutual excommunications were lift byPope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I

The OP’s question was clear and was answered historically correct and not through bias or personal opinion on my part. This is not intended to go against the Orthodox Church, only to answer the question based on history. I do not wish to debate the excommunications between the two because it originated out of a split inheritance between two siblings, which I do not believe should have ever occurred to begin with. You are free to believe whatever you choose but I stand by history, not bios or personal feelings. Frankly I wish they would kiss and make up completely.

 

[Mickey]

Well , then you explain to me how it is the pope (in Rome) excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople,

Hmm. Was Cardinal Humbert also known as the Pope? Did the Pope know that Cardinal Humbert was going to present a bull of excommunication?

 

[Mickey]

This is not intended to go against the Orthodox Church, only to answer the question based on history.

Your take on history is skewed.

 

[Mickey]

This is the declaration. As I said, it has been in negotiations for many years. It did not rescind the excommunication and that is what is being negotiated.

Following is the text of the joint Catholic-Orthodox declaration, approved by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople, read simultaneously (Dec. 7, 1965) at a public meeting of the ecumenical council in Rome and at a special ceremony in Istanbul. The declaration concerns the Catholic-Orthodox exchange of excommunications in 1054

B. **They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication **which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p..._p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html

 

[twb1621]

Hmm. Was Cardinal Humbert also known as the Pope? Did the Pope know that Cardinal Humbert was going to present a bull of excommunication?

How exactly Cardinal Humbert handled the mission he was sent on is debated to this day along with whatever authority he was given in his assignment. Both he and the Patriarch of Constantinople blew it. Is that something you are proud of that you want to debate this? I myself being born and raised Catholic have never been proud of the behavior of either parts over this matter. History is what it is and you have chosen to be Catholic. If you want to debate why are you so eager to debate a family matter?

 

[Mickey]

I myself being born and raised Catholic have never been proud of the behavior of either parts over this matter.

West had been separating Herself from the East long before the Great Schism.

I am very happy to come home to the true Church of Christ.

 

[Mickey]

I stand by history

As do I.

twb1621:
Frankly I wish they would kiss and make up completely.That would be nice. But Rome would first have to renounce Her innovations.

 

[Peter_J]

The Orthodox Church however has recently been negotiating with the papacy of the Catholic Church to have the excommunication from the Catholic Church rescinded so both can reunite.

I do not wish to debate the excommunications between the two because it originated out of a split inheritance between two siblings, which I do not believe should have ever occurred to begin with.

My response to both of these is the same: you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[Peter_J]

That would be nice. But Rome would first have to renounce Her innovations.

If by that you mean, declare that Papal Infallibility, the IC, etc. are untrue, then I would say dream on. We can’t declare truths to be false – even if doing so would make us more ecumenically popular.

If you’re thinking more along the lines of saying “Declaring all those new dogmas was a mistake, we shouldn’t have done that”, then I’d say you’re right to hope for that. In fact I think we can already see a change of attitute with regard to defining new dogmas – for example, contrast the eagerness in 1870 to define Papal Infallibiliy and UOJ, with the current reluctance to define co-remptrix.

 

[Mickey]

If by that you mean, declare that Papal Infallibility, the IC, etc. are untrue, then I would say dream on. We can’t declare truths to be false – even if doing so would make us more ecumenically popular.

Hence the dilemma. Infallibility and IC are not part of ther deposit of faith and were never declared as such when the Church was undivided no matter how much Rome would like to claim “development of doctrine”. Now you cannot go back because in 1870 Pope Pius IX declared that the Pope is infallible. It is a catch 22.

Tis a pity.

If you’re thinking more along the lines of saying “Declaring all those new dogmas was a mistake, we shouldn’t have done that”, then I’d say you’re right to hope for that.

Yes. As a matter of fact, this quote really peaked my interest!

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco*, CA: Ignatius Press]**

 

[StMarina303ad]

When a group leaves the Church, they end up with a new name. For example, the up-starts in Germany became Lutheran. The Swiss became Calvinists. Then, when those groups split, the new one takes a new name as well.

Now, if the Catholic Church left Orthodoxy, why did we keep the name? Why did we not become something else and they retain the name CAtholic?

Hi Ralph! Remember, no question is a dumb question. Well except this one. No, just kidding!

This isn’t stupid at all, but learning the history behind the name of the Church is important to understand.

We were first given the name “Christians” aka little Christs by a non believer in Antioch. They likened it to cockroaches - the more you kill the more that seem to pop up everywhere. Those darn Christians! You know, they never did come up with adequent “bug spray” to keep us at bay.

Anyway, we were all Christians at that point - those believers from Orthodox Patriarchates and those from Catholic Patriarchates and those Independent Churches too, like Greece and Cyprus. When disputes began to arise, people going off the deep end like Arius and others who also claimed to still be Christians, we because to use terms like Orthodox and Catholic to differentiate ourselves from the heretics who also used the name Christian. When the Catholic Church split from Orthodoxy, the names continued to be used interchangibly. In some areas of the world they still are.

Today, in the United States though, the word Catholic is used to signify those Churches which are in union with the Patriarch of Rome and the term Orthodox is used to mean those Churches which are in union with all the other Patriarchates besides Rome.

When, what we know as the Catholic Church today, left Holy Orthodoxy, the rest of the Church remained in tact. We are the Church entire. We are not missing a “lung”. We have the Orthodoxy: The Right/Correct Faith as handed to us from the Apostles. We are the true Christians.

 

[Peter_J]

Hence the dilemma. Infallibility and IC are not part of ther deposit of faith and were never declared as such when the Church was undivided no matter how much Rome would like to claim “development of doctrine”. Now you cannot go back because in 1870 Pope Pius IX declared that the Pope is infallible. It is a catch 22.

Tis a pity.

Well if you are correct in saying that P.I. and I.C. are not referable to the Deposit of Faith, then I am definitely not correct in saying that they have been dogmatically defined. (Unless you have a radically different understanding of what it means to “dogmatically define” something.)

Yes. As a matter of fact, this quote really peaked my interest!

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (

San Francisco**, CA: Ignatius Press]**

I like that quote, too.

 

[StMarina303ad]

If by that you mean, declare that Papal Infallibility, the IC, etc. are untrue, then I would say dream on. We can’t declare truths to be false – even if doing so would make us more ecumenically popular.

If you’re thinking more along the lines of saying “Declaring all those new dogmas was a mistake, we shouldn’t have done that”, then I’d say you’re right to hope for that. In fact I think we can already see a change of attitute with regard to defining new dogmas – for example, contrast the eagerness in 1870 to define Papal Infallibiliy and UOJ, with the current reluctance to define co-remptrix.

How can you reconcile Papal Infallibility with the conflicting teachings made by various Popes on various issues of Faith when the Popes were speaking “ex-cathedra” aka from the “Chair of Peter”?

Faith Issues like the Creed and the Filioque Clause?