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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ralphinal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Mickey:
As do I.
That would be nice. But Rome would first have to renounce Her innovations.

by george mickey and peter, I stand corrected In that the excommunication from the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church were rescinded although it was in a jesture of peace not a resolution to anything at that time. The purpose was to re-open the negotiations that I referred to over all these centuries and years. Sorry Peter and Mickey, I guess I was wrong about the excommunication point and only right about the issues.
Excerpts from recent articles showing the negotiations yet continue. As I said, it is something that should never have occurred.

Roman Catholic, Orthodox Church Dignitaries Seek Unity
Monday, September 18, 2006

BELGRADE, Serbia — Top Roman Catholic and Orthodox dignitaries declared Monday that the time has come to close the ages-old rifts between the ancient branches of Christianity and bring East and West closer together.
Representing the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics and more than 250 million Christian Orthodox, sixty bishops, metropolitans and cardinals — 30 from each side — convened in the Serbian capital Belgrade for a renewed “theological” dialogue while acknowledging that much wider issues are involved.
“East and West have been estranged from each other since the 11th century,” said Orthodox Metropolitan John Zizioulas, referring to the historic schism in 1054 when the spiritual leaders in the Vatican and in Constantinople — now Istanbul, Turkey — severed ties over the rising influence of the papacy.
That split was sealed then with an exchange of anathemas — spiritual repudiations, which were lifted in the 20th century but only with halting progress toward restoring bonds.
“We experience in our time that European nations unite and create one family,” he said. “It is time to recover the ancient unity. … East and West meet now not only on the theological level, but also on the political level.”
Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s most senior figure on Christian unity, said the long-separated branches should turn to their “unity in God, one faith, one baptism.”
“We look to the future to build unity for Europe,” he added.
The week-long gathering in Belgrade is intended to re-start the top-level dialogue after formal talks broke off six years ago.
It is also a fresh start under Pope Benedict XVI, who has appealed to all Christians to unite against what he considers rampant secularism and declining faith in the West.
The Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, however, have a long history of disputes and rivalry. Issues include the extent of papal authority and alleged attempts by Vatican to poach followers and encroach on historically Orthodox territory, particularly Ukraine and other areas of the former Soviet Union.
“As Christians, we ask our Lord to give us strength to put behind the past,” Zizioulas said.
Cardinal Kasper responded praising “forgiveness, purification of our memory of bad things, from both sides.”
The last such dialogue was in Emmitsburg, Maryland, in 2000, when the representatives put together a draft document examining the issues. That effort, however, fell apart and the text was never formally debated.
The venue of the present talks, the participants said, has symbolic importance. Belgrade was the capital of the former Yugoslavia, which broke up violently in the 1990s, including battles between Roman Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs. But its ethnic groups now strive for reconciliation.
“We have gathered in a country which is recovering from great difficulties, a country that is trying to resurrect itself,” Zizioulas said after Serbia’s Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica greeted the guests at the opening ceremony.
post 1 of 2
 
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.

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]**

Okay, my turn for a stupid question…what does I.C. stand for?
 
Post 2 of 2
Taken form the Vatican Information Service:

CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DOCUMENT ON THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH

VATICAN CITY, NOV 15, 2007 (VIS) - Made public today was the final document of the plenary assembly of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The meeting was held in the Italian city of Ravenna from October 8 to 14 under the presidency of Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and His Excellency Ioannis, metropolitan of Pergamo.

The title of the final document is: “Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority.”

Commenting on the 46-paragraph-long text in an interview with Vatican Radio, Cardinal Kasper affirmed that “the document speaks of the tension between authority and conciliarity (or synodality) at the local (i.e., diocesan), regional and universal levels. The important development is that for the first time the Orthodox Churches have said yes, this universal level of the Church exists and also at the universal level there is conciliarity, synodality and authority; this means that there is also a Primate; according to the practice of the ancient Church, the first bishop is the bishop of Rome.”

“However,” the cardinal continued, "we did not talk of the privileges of the bishop of Rome, we merely indicated the praxis for future debate. This document is a modest first step and as such it gives rise to hope, but we must not exaggerate its importance.

“The next time,” added the president of the pontifical council, “we will have to return to the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church during the first millennium. Then we must also talk of the second millennium, of Vatican Councils I and II, and this will not be easy; the road is very long and difficult.”

The cardinal also commented on the fact that the delegation from the Russian Orthodox Church had abandoned the plenary assembly, explaining that “there was an inter-Orthodox problem over the recognition of the autonomous Church of Estonia” about which Moscow and Constantinople take different views.

“This is an inter-orthodox question,” he reiterated, "and we cannot interfere; yet we are extremely sad and concerned because it is important to us that the Russian Orthodox Church should also participate in our future dialogue. Hence we cannot interfere but we wish to ask Moscow and Constantinople to do their best to find a solution, a compromise.

“If they wish,” the cardinal concluded, “we can also facilitate this solution, either at the bilateral level between Moscow and Constantinople, or at the pan-Orthodox level, but there is not doubt that we want the Russian Orthodox Church to anticipate. It is a very important Church, we do not want to dialogue without the Russians and we wish to work to achieve this aim.”
CON-UC/RAVENNA DOCUMENT/KASPER VIS 071115 (470)

VATICAN CITY, NOV 15, 2007 (VIS) - Made public today was the final document of the plenary assembly of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The meeting was held in the Italian city of Ravenna from October 8 to 14 under the presidency of Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and His Excellency Ioannis, metropolitan of Pergamo.

The title of the final document is: “Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority.”

Commenting on the 46-paragraph-long text in an interview with Vatican Radio, Cardinal Kasper affirmed that “the document speaks of the tension between authority and conciliarity (or synodality) at the local (i.e., diocesan), regional and universal levels. The important development is that for the first time the Orthodox Churches have said yes, this universal level of the Church exists and also at the universal level there is conciliarity, synodality and authority; this means that there is also a Primate; according to the practice of the ancient Church, the first bishop is the bishop of Rome.”

“However,” the cardinal continued, "we did not talk of the privileges of the bishop of Rome, we merely indicated the praxis for future debate. This document is a modest first step and as such it gives rise to hope, but we must not exaggerate its importance.

“The next time,” added the president of the pontifical council, “we will have to return to the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church during the first millennium. Then we must also talk of the second millennium, of Vatican Councils I and II, and this will not be easy; the road is very long and difficult.”

The cardinal also commented on the fact that the delegation from the Russian Orthodox Church had abandoned the plenary assembly, explaining that “there was an inter-Orthodox problem over the recognition of the autonomous Church of Estonia” about which Moscow and Constantinople take different views.

“This is an inter-orthodox question,” he reiterated, "and we cannot interfere; yet we are extremely sad and concerned because it is important to us that the Russian Orthodox Church should also participate in our future dialogue. Hence we cannot interfere but we wish to ask Moscow and Constantinople to do their best to find a solution, a compromise.

“If they wish,” the cardinal concluded, “we can also facilitate this solution, either at the bilateral level between Moscow and Constantinople, or at the pan-Orthodox level, but there is not doubt that we want the Russian Orthodox Church to anticipate. It is a very important Church, we do not want to dialogue without the Russians and we wish to work to achieve this aim.”

but you know, all this means you Peter and Mickey are wrong too. I guess none of us are perfect.😉
 
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]**

This is a great statement which Orthodox could agree with except for the fact that the Catholic Church has defined Papal Infallibility which it requires Catholics to believe…we can’t be in union with a Church that teaches heresy.

Besides, this statement conflicts with the CCC. I wonder how Catholics explain that one?
 
Post 2 of 2
Taken form the Vatican Information Service:

CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DOCUMENT ON THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH

VATICAN CITY, NOV 15, 2007 (VIS) - “However,” the cardinal continued, "we did not talk of the privileges of the bishop of Rome, we merely indicated the praxis for future debate.
my bold

Doesn’t seem like the cardinal knows what PRAXIS means. What a shame!
 
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.
I thought we were suppose to stay with non-biosed resources according to what you said previously so I will suggest you use Encyclopedia.com to find out which Church is the original Catholic and Apostolic Church and which one became known as the “Orthodox Church” which incidently is now recognizing the pope as the Bishop of Rome and successor to Peter. Orthodox have no pope, isn’t that true? 👍
 
This is a great statement which Orthodox could agree with except for the fact that the Catholic Church has defined Papal Infallibility which it requires Catholics to believe…we can’t be in union with a Church that teaches heresy.

Besides, this statement conflicts with the CCC. I wonder how Catholics explain that one?
So is the Catholic CHurch heretical?
 
This is a great statement which Orthodox could agree with except for the fact that the Catholic Church has defined Papal Infallibility which it requires Catholics to believe…we can’t be in union with a Church that teaches heresy.

Besides, this statement conflicts with the CCC. I wonder how Catholics explain that one?
No it doesn’t. First off, the second part of the quote is chopped off where he says the East would have to accept that the developments which took place in the west regarding the doctrine of the papacy are not heretical.

The problem is that we now disagree on how the doctrine was understood in the first millenium. So the first part without the second is a bit vague.

However, the exercise of papal authority has varied over the ages and Ratzinger is offering the first millenium as a common model for the exercise of authority.
 
process… What do you interpret it to mean that he is the one who is wrong?
It is part of the spiritual war offense:

Praxis includes: Watchfulness: discernment of thoughts, Prayer: both personal and corporate, Fasting, Study of Sacred Scripture, Reading the Lives of the Saints, Receiving the Mysteries of the Church: especially Confession and Holy Eucharist and Metanoia.

To learn more take a visit to St. Anthony’s Monastery in AZ and visit with Elder Efraim or Elder Paisios.
 
No it doesn’t. First off, the second part of the quote is chopped off where he says the East would have to accept that the developments which took place in the west regarding the doctrine of the papacy are not heretical. Okay, makes sense know. But not going to happen.

The problem is that we now disagree on how the doctrine was understood in the first millenium. So the first part without the second is a bit vague. True we do not agree. Somehow modern day Catholics interpret history differently.

However, the exercise of papal authority has varied over the ages and Ratzinger is offering the first millenium as a common model for the exercise of authority. Since His understanding of history is different that it was, this then gets us no where in terms of possible reunification.
 
I didn’t see that you were answered Marina:

I.C. = Immaculate Conception (of the Blessed Virgin Mary)
 
It is part of the spiritual war offense:

Praxis includes: Watchfulness: discernment of thoughts, Prayer: both personal and corporate, Fasting, Study of Sacred Scripture, Reading the Lives of the Saints, Receiving the Mysteries of the Church: especially Confession and Holy Eucharist and Metanoia.

To learn more take a visit to St. Anthony’s Monastery in AZ and visit with Elder Efraim or Elder Paisios.
I understand what you are saying but he didn’t use it incorrectly. It is the process or processes of the spiritual war offense. He obviously used it as process which is what it means. You understand it correctly in the usage you expressed and so did he in that case. Thank you for your response, it is appreciated.
 
The more I read these “Catholic and Orthodox” threads, the more confused I become. 😦

Anyway, I just wanted to add that at the last Glendi Orthodox festival I attended a few months ago (I hope I’m not too much of a heretic to enjoy your delicious, delicious food, Orthodox friends… :)), the Priest who gave some lectures on Church architecture and art did use the terms “Orthodox” and “Catholic” to describe the Church, paying careful attention to distinguish between “Catholic” as a designation for ‘universal’ from the common Anglophone application of the term as a shorthand for “Those people who are in union with Rome that may or may not be considered heretical depending on what church you are speaking from”. 🙂

And indeed evidence of the universal nature of the Orthodox Church was in evidence throughout the lectures that afternoon, as one after another Eritrean Orthodox, Arabs, Russians and others came into the Church to prostrate themselves before the icons. Even as a Catholic, I was very impressed at that show of devotion. (Am I excommunicated yet? 😊)

So, there you go…one example of the Orthodox Catholic Church going by that name, in this audience with both Orthodox and non-Orthodox festival patrons, none of whom openly objected to the usage… 🤷

As usual, I feel like there are huge concepts and events that I am not understanding…really, I feel dumber than Ralphinal’s question… (just kidding; it’s a good one)
 
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?
Do I understand this correctly? you are against the words “From the Father and the Son”, is that correct? You do not believe the Holy Spirit is of the Son or the Son of the Holy Spirit?

You deny the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

What are these conflicting teachings made by what popes “ex-cathedra”?

Lastly, how do you explain the fact that the seat of Peter, the papal seat has been held and recognized as such for (including by your Church) centuries long before your Christian Church parted from the oversight of the pope, that the very same papal seat continued to be filled through the chain of succession beyond the time of departure of your Church through to today and that the Church Fathers who we both fall under have declared commonly that anyone who leaves the Catholic Church (spoken by them) is a hieratic yet you who have not been under the authority of the seat of Peter papal seat since this separation claim to be the original Church and We who are in an unbroken line are the Hieratics? I don’t get your idea here.
 
Do I understand this correctly? you are against the words “From the Father and the Son”, is that correct? You do not believe the Holy Spirit is of the Son or the Son of the Holy Spirit?

God the Father is the Fountainhead of the Most Holy Trinity from the Father the Son begotten and from the Father the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally. That is the Orthodox belief today, it was the Ancient Christian Church’s belief back then and it was also the Pope of Rome’s belief in the early centuries.

You deny the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

No, what we deny is that any human is born guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve. We have a completely different understanding of Original Sin than does the current Roman Catholic Church and do the Protestant Churches. Everyone after Adam and Eve were born into the effects of sin, not the guilt of sin. What does that mean? It means all human beings can be born deformed, can become ill and can die.

What are these conflicting teachings made by what popes “ex-cathedra”?

At work, I don’t have a time to dig up the research again. I know you will find it some where here as others have clearly documented the names and dates of these Popes and what their conflicting teaching on Faith from the “chair of Peter” has been.

Lastly, how do you explain the fact that the seat of Peter, the papal seat has been held and recognized as such for (including by your Church) centuries long before your Christian Church parted from the oversight of the pope, that the very same papal seat continued to be filled through the chain of succession beyond the time of departure of your Church through to today and that the Church Fathers who we both fall under have declared commonly that anyone who leaves the Catholic Church (spoken by them) is a hieratic yet you who have not been under the authority of the seat of Peter papal seat since this separation claim to be the original Church and We who are in an unbroken line are the Hieratics?

Each of the Original 5 Patriarchates all have an unbroken line of succession:

St. Andrew the Apostle founded the Church in Byzantium prior to 38ad (later to be called Constantinople), here are his successors: ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en

St. Mark the Apostle founded the Church in Alexandria in 40ad, here are his successors: greekorthodox-alexandria.org/index.php?module=content&cid=001003 The current Patriarch aka Pope is: Theodoros II

St. Peter the Apostle founded the Church in Antioch in 45ad, here are his successors: antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/viewcontent.php?content=%241%24Fqww80sV%24LJtl/mpIsne5lz0mZ5kCy0_%241%24cY2fEC.3%242X4rjsf3DqIjEbC53bz6R/%241%24Fqww80sV%24LJtl/mpIsne5lz0mZ5kCy0b56a92baa0ee987eb7f7e4a179b60efb&id=1&cat=%241%24DdKoSQCb%24FO96gT8jCFwnHPxW4LNZj1%241%24pCxQHS8F%24GHaBW0fpsqpxYoSn4BE0M/_%241%24DdKoSQCb%24FO96gT8jCFwnHPxW4LNZj150102e124822220aaa78a8e3b2ccba34&catid=3&contentname=Historical%20Overview&catname=Other%20Contents

St. James the Apostle founded the Church in Jeruselem prior to 62ad, here are his successors: jerusalem-patriarchate.info/en/patriarx_iero.htm

St. Peter the Apostle, together with St. Paul, founded the Church in Rome in about 53ad or soon after: I can’t provide you with a link of his successors in Rome simply because I can not find a link for it on the Vatican’s website, but I don’t think it matters because we both believe Rome has certainly had successors through out the centuries.

I don’t get your idea here.

Well, I guess maybe you may understand it this way:

The fact is that the Church existed before the Bible - the Church didn’t need the Bible in order for the Church to exist (something Protestants fail to grasp)…and likewise, the Church also existed well before Peter ever created a “chair” in Rome - the Church didn’t need the Pope of Rome in order for the Church to exist.(something many modern Catholics seem to fail to grasp).

The Church existed before Rome was established and the Church has continued without missing a beat since Rome excommunicated itself from the Church.

Hope this helps.
 
40.png
StMarina303ad:
You know, I do have rebuttals but I first find it fascinating as though debating myself in front of a mirror yet most importantly to me It is greatly saddening with all that we do share in our faith yet be separated. Of course just as you, my position is devoted to my Church, but I have yet to see anything important enough for this to have happened and I pray it ends in the Light of Christ. I have a great deal of respect for the body of the Orthodox church and their devotion and I believe this split was generated mostly from pride and ego on both sides. I will continue dialog with you as you wish but as cousins in Christ not opponents. If this is satisfactory to you I will respond to your comments tomorrow, and thank you for your honesty.
 
Do I understand this correctly? you are against the words “From the Father and the Son”, is that correct? You do not believe the Holy Spirit is of the Son or the Son of the Holy Spirit?
Generally, EOs are against the statement “the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son”. (Conversely, RCs are generally against the statement “the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone”.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top