The Universal Catholic Church

[dvdjs]

You ask what interest it is to me whether the Syro-Malabar church has ever broken communion with Rome. My interest is in the historical Truth.
…
… I challenge this assumption, which I know to be false.

Hesychios:
When you speak of historical Truth, with the T capitalized, I am suspicious. But, if you know the assumption “to be false”, I am all ears. So far, however, there has been no evidence presented, just assertion, together with some plausibility arguments that are not logically valid (fallacy of inconceivablilty), and an obviously erroneous appeal to some sense of transitivity in breaking communion.

How about some scholarship from someone who claims interested in Truth?

My perspective is that groups have their in histories elements of mythos that are sometimes false, sometimes exagerrated, and sometimes true. Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims - just about everyone. Including you: I note that you, ostensibly interested in "T"ruth, buy into the Frankish-capture-of-the-Papacy alternative history of some orthodox polemicists.

If you feel that certain notions are false and feel somehow the urge to dispel them, why not do so with some respect for the people who hold to their own histories. Evidence would be respectful. Informing rather than directing would be respectful. Rants are not.

 

[dvdjs]

Yes, they officially were a part of the Church of the East. They rejected all councils after Constantinople I in 381. Ephesus declares them heretics because they refuse to call the Virgin Mary theotokos. Consequently they were considered Nestorians(although this is a false accusation). They joined the Catholic Church when the Portuguese went to India. Many of them also broke subsequently when they got sick of the oppressive Portuguese and they joined the Jacobites(the Syriac Orthodox Church which rejects the council of Chalcedon and all councils after it.)

Jimmy, Do the "they"s and "them"s in each of your sentences have the same antecedents? Or are you fudging here?

 

[dvdjs]

Do people realize the implications here? If the Syriac Orthodox came into communion with the Catholic Church would it be appropriate to say they never broke communion with Rome in the first place because they followed the Alexandrians? Would any historian in his or her right mind support such a claim? Give it a rest, people.

**
Enough with the historical revisionism!**

Enough with the anger. The analogy to the Syriac Orthodox is far better than that of the silly one about the OCA, but not much better. The issue again is the effect of isolation. It would be implausible to suggest that within Syria, then a center of Christianity, the status of the different churches - communion or ex-communication - was anything but clear. Can the same be said of the situation in the south of India at that time? This issue, I would suggest, is the crux of the claims. As such, historians in their right mind would cogently address this issue.

 

[yeshua]

The analogy to the Syriac Orthodox is far better than that of the silly one about the OCA, but not much better.

Your opinion is noted.

The issue again is the effect of isolation. It would be implausible to suggest that within Syria, then a center of Christianity, the status of the different churches - communion or ex-communication - was anything but clear.

Really? Look at the Maronites, whose territory alongside the Syriac Orthodox encompassed what was once considered Syria. Even in the center of Christianity, communion lines were blurred between these two groups with claims of episcopal swapping from both sides. I’m sorry, but your refutation does not hold water.

Can the same be said of the situation in the south of India at that time? This issue, I would suggest, is the crux of the claims.

The fact that bishops of the Syro Malabars were originally sent from the parent Church of the East to the Syro-Malabars is quite indicative of a communion. Furthermore, the authoritative title that the head of the Syro-Malabars held needed required approval of their churches’ patriarch, meaning that of the Church of the East. There was also a period of time before formal union took place, much similar to that of the Maronites. If there never was a broken communion, what is the need for a new union?

Simply because there is large geographic distance between the patriarchate and the Malabars does not mean an isolation from Christendom.

Enough with the anger…

…As such, historians in their right mind would cogently address this issue.

Then I will stop the the anger if you stop the professional insults.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy, Do the "they"s and "them"s in each of your sentences have the same antecedents? Or are you fudging here?

Yes, I probably should have used the name of the Malabar Church a couple times within there to make it clear that I was speaking of them throughout the whole post.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I truly think we will never be able to know who was right. The Orthodox or the Catholics.

 

[wynd]

I truly think we will never be able to know who was right. The Orthodox or the Catholics.

We will once we die

 

[East_and_West]

I don’t think its that difficult to tell.

 

[holdencaulfield]

We will once we die

However I don’t think that those who choose wrong will be condemned to Hell.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I don’t think its that difficult to tell.

Both have convincing arguments, really they do.

 

[East_and_West]

Both have convincing arguments, really they do.

I have never found the EO arguements to be all that compelling. Plus, the Eastern Churches spent like a quarter of their existences in heresy whereas Rome has always been orthodox.

 

[wynd]

I have never found the EO arguements to be all that compelling. Plus, the Eastern Churches spent like a quarter of their existences in heresy whereas Rome has always been orthodox.

Come now, you know this is just your perspective.

 

[East_and_West]

Come now, you know this is just your perspective.

Not really. The EO churhces did spend about a quarter of their history in heresy.

 

[wynd]

Not really. The EO churhces did spend about a quarter of their history in heresy.

Be that as it may, your other statements (“I have never found the EO arguements to be all that compelling” and “Rome has always been orthodox”) are still just from your perspective.

 

[East_and_West]

Be that as it may, your other statements (“I have never found the EO arguements to be all that compelling” and “Rome has always been orthodox”) are still just from your perspective.

Well. That is your perspective. But the orthodoxy of Rome is really up for debate. No one has ever really been able to show that Rome has ever been in heresy.

 

[Nicholas82]

Not really. The EO churhces did spend about a quarter of their history in heresy.

Rome has been playing catch up for the past couple hundred years if not longer.

 

[East_and_West]

Rome has been playing catch up for the past couple hundred years if not longer.

Now this is completely false. Rome has still not been guilty of heresy. You must be confusing Rome wiht Constantinople, silly.

 

[Milliardo]

Now this is completely false. Rome has still not been guilty of heresy. You must be confusing Rome wiht Constantinople, silly.

You mean then or now? Rome has never stated that the Orthodox Church is in heresy; the most it stated is that it is in schism, but not in heresy.

 

[East_and_West]

You mean then or now? Rome has never stated that the Orthodox Church is in heresy; the most it stated is that it is in schism, but not in heresy.

But that does not mean that they are not in heresy. If heresy is a post baptismal denial of an article of the faith then the Eastern Orthodox Churches would fall under this category because they deny

1. Papal Infallibility
2. The Immacualte Conception
3. Original Sin
4. Purgatory
5. The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
   etc.

 

[wynd]

Well. That is your perspective. But the orthodoxy of Rome is really up for debate. No one has ever really been able to show that Rome has ever been in heresy.

Again, perspective An Orthodox Christian would say that Rome was staunchly Orthodox (and orthodox) for the first thousand years of Christianity, but has been going off the deep end ever since… but that’s for another subforum