The Universal Catholic Church

[East_and_West]

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

Oh, but you see, an Eastern Orthodox Christian would be wrong. so very wrong…

 

[Milliardo]

But that does not mean that they are not in heresy.

Again, not your call; Rome itself already stated Orthodoxy is not in heresy. Between what it has stated and your opinion, I would give more weight with what it states. After all, as a Catholic, wouldn’t that be your benchmark, or else you would have to say you do not agree with the views of Rome regarding Orthodoxy.

 

[East_and_West]

Again, not your call; Rome itself already stated Orthodoxy is not in heresy. Between what it has stated and your opinion, I would give more weight with what it states. After all, as a Catholic, wouldn’t that be your benchmark, or else you would have to say you do not agree with the views of Rome regarding Orthodoxy.

1. When did Rome explicitly state that the EO churches are not in heresy?
2. I did not make the call that they are in heresy. The councils have. For example, Vatican I places anyone who denies the teaching of Papal infallibility under an anathema.

 

[Milliardo]

1. When did Rome explicitly state that the EO churches are not in heresy?

Since the time of the separation of East and West; Rome has never declared Orthodoxy to be heretical. You can search for any document that would say so; you won’t find any. Rome has declared Protestantism to be in heresy, not Orthodoxy. Note that if Orthodoxy is in heresy, Rome would not see its sacraments and succession to be valid; heresy would automatically invalidate it. That it does not declare Orthodox orders and sacraments to be invalid demonstrates that Rome does not see the Orthodox Church to be in heresy.

1. I did not make the call that they are in heresy.

Then you have to be in great denial since no statement coming from any Council, or from the Pope ex cathedra explicitly or implicitly stating the Orthodox Church to be in heresy; therefore, as far as Rome is concerned, the teachings of Orthodoxy is sound. So, again, you are simply in denial and could not accept the fact that Rome does not agree with your views.

 

[East_and_West]

Since the time of the separation of East and West; Rome has never declared Orthodoxy to be heretical. You can search for any document that would say so; you won’t find any. Rome has declared Protestantism to be in heresy, not Orthodoxy. Note that if Orthodoxy is in heresy, Rome would not see its sacraments and succession to be valid; heresy would automatically invalidate it. That it does not declare Orthodox orders and sacraments to be invalid demonstrates that Rome does not see the Orthodox Church to be in heresy.]

You are so silly. Trying to find loop holes. Just because Rome has not specifically stated “The Eastern Orthodox Churches are in heresy” does not mean that they are not in heresy. In fact, Rome has never specifically said, “The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in heresy” either. Futher, the validity of their sacraments does not protect them from heresy. Protestants have a valid baptism but they are still in heresy.

Then you have to be in great denial since no statement coming from any Council, or from the Pope ex cathedra explicitly or implicitly stating the Orthodox Church to be in heresy; therefore, as far as Rome is concerned, the teachings of Orthodoxy is sound. So, again, you are simply in denial and could not accept the fact that Rome does not agree with your views.]

Silly, silly, silly. Again, I refer you to what I wrote above. But I will add this. The first Vaticn Council has pronounced anathema on anyone who denies Papal infallibility. This would include the Eastern Orthodox. I am not quite sure why you are in denial over this matter. Is it just too hard for you to deal with?

 

[Milliardo]

You are so silly. Trying to find loop holes. Just because Rome has not specifically stated “The Eastern Orthodox Churches are in heresy” does not mean that they are not in heresy.

Then again, that’s your problem, not Rome’s nor the Orthodox Church. Since Rome has not stated otherwise, why then should we follow your notion?

Protestants have a valid baptism but they are still in heresy.

The general premise is they still believe in Christ, hence the validity of their Trinitarian baptism (denial of the Trinity invalidates baptism, that is why non-Trinitarian sects like Oneness Pentecostals will still have to undergo baptism if they would like to become Catholic). However, as you can see again, the mere fact itself that Orthodox succession and sacraments are valid shows that Orthodoxy is not in heresy. Look back again to the premise of the validity of Trinitarian Protestant baptism to understand that. Protestant orders are invalid because of the denial of the Eucharist and the validity of the succession of the Pope as coming from the Apostles. Orthodoxy has not denied the validity of the Pope as successor to Peter but questions the claim of universal jurisdiction which was alien in the ancient Church.

Silly, silly, silly. Again, I refer you to what I wrote above. But I will add this. The first Vaticn Council has pronounced anathema on anyone who denies Papal infallibility. This would include the Eastern Orthodox. I am not quite sure why you are in denial over this matter. Is it just too hard for you to deal with?

Because Rome did not say so. If it said so, then you would have to show where specifically it has stated that the Orthodox Church is in heresy. No proof=no dice, and you would simply have to argue that your notion is correct over that of Rome’s. Again, no go–Rome did not say so, so it would still be you against what its view is. If you want clarification, go ask an apologist regarding this and come back here once you have done so. Too bad for you if the answer is the same as what I have given–you would have to simply admit the fact that Orthodoxy is not in heresy, regardless what your viewpoint is.

 

[wynd]

The general premise is they still believe in Christ, hence the validity of their Trinitarian baptism (denial of the Trinity invalidates baptism, that is why non-Trinitarian sects like Oneness Pentecostals will still have to undergo baptism if they would like to become Catholic).

Actually, their baptism is considered invalid because of the form, done “in the name of Jesus” instead of “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” According to Latin theology, anyone (even an atheist) can baptize validly as long as the correct words are used.

Protestant orders are invalid because of the denial of the Eucharist and the validity of the succession of the Pope as coming from the Apostles. Orthodoxy has not denied the validity of the Pope as successor to Peter but questions the claim of universal jurisdiction which was alien in the ancient Church.

Again, this comes down to a matter of form, not of belief. The Anglicans changed their ordination rite to be so different from the Catholic rite as to be considered a different thing altogether and thus not valid anymore. If a non-Catholic bishop whose orders were considered valid attempted to ordain men as priests using a rite that the RCC considered valid, then the ordination of the priests is valid.

 

[East_and_West]

I guess you don’t understand logic.
Major Premise: Vatican I places all who deny Papal infallibility under and anathema.
Minor Premis: The Eastern Orthodox deny Papal Infallibility.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox are under an anathema.
Why are they under anathema? For a post baptismal denial of an article of faith. This is by definition heresy.

 

[Milliardo]

Actually, their baptism is considered invalid because of the form, done “in the name of Jesus” instead of “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” According to Latin theology, anyone (even an atheist) can baptize validly as long as the correct words are used.

Exactly; though more than the form, the theology behind it is the more crucial one.

If a non-Catholic bishop whose orders were considered valid attempted to ordain men as priests using a rite that the RCC considered valid, then the ordination of the priests is valid.

No, it does not. Even if they should use the same form as that of the Catholic Church, if its succession is invalid then it would still be invalid, no matter what form they would use. Form is not the issue, but again the theology behind it.

I guess you don’t understand logic.

This is not about logic, but mere common sense. If Rome has not said so, then who are we then to question it? If you do not agree with Rome’s view, then who are we to follow–your view, or one that comes from Rome? Since Rome as spoken regarding Orthodox validity and it not being in heresy, then wouldn’t it be logical to follow what it said regarding this? If this is a problem with you, that you cannot accept Orthodoxy not declared heretical, then it might be best to take that matter up with the Vatican itself. I doubt they’ll give you the answer you long to hear, in which case, you’ll simply either have to go on with your own notion, or drop it completely. Again, not the Orthodox Church’s problem, nor Rome’s.

Why are they under anathema? For a post baptismal denial of an article of faith. This is by definition heresy.

Ah, but to be anathema Rome has to declare it so. Again, since it has not declared the Orthodox Church to be anathema, that tells you…what? Going by your premise then Rome should have declared Orthodox succession to be invalid by its unacceptance of Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. Strangely, it has not done so. No proof=no dice. Your premise then falls flat.

 

[holdencaulfield]

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.

That is quite true. The issue as I see it is:

• Papal Supremacy
• The Filioque

However the Filioque I believe was more of a catalyst, I think it could have been worked out (like it was at the Council of Florence) however the real issue was the Pope.

 

[holdencaulfield]

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.

Yes good point.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Since the time of the separation of East and West; Rome has never declared Orthodoxy to be heretical. You can search for any document that would say so; you won’t find any. Rome has declared Protestantism to be in heresy, not Orthodoxy. Note that if Orthodoxy is in heresy, Rome would not see its sacraments and succession to be valid; heresy would automatically invalidate it. That it does not declare Orthodox orders and sacraments to be invalid demonstrates that Rome does not see the Orthodox Church to be in heresy.

Yes good point. You will notice that Cardinal Hubert only excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, not the entire Church.

Then you have to be in great denial since no statement coming from any Council, or from the Pope ex cathedra explicitly or implicitly stating the Orthodox Church to be in heresy; therefore, as far as Rome is concerned, the teachings of Orthodoxy is sound. So, again, you are simply in denial and could not accept the fact that Rome does not agree with your views.

Exactly there has been no Ex Cathedra statement about the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Question:

Do you Orthodox Christians believe that Rome was not orthodox in it’s teachings in 1054?

What about in 1431-1445?

 

[mangy_dog]

As long as it is not the universal catholic church in San Diego that is very liberal.

But in this case I think the OP just picked up on two words.

And we do use descriptive words with the same meaning.
ex. The beautiful, gorgeous flower won an award for outstandingly huge and fragrant, scented blossoms that filled the atmospheric, air, so no one could miss the lingering scent as they entered the “orchid” flower garden show.

So…using your logic I would say, " the beautiful, beautiful, flower; and fragrant, fragrant - filled the air, air…"

Katolikos = catholic = universal. One is not a description of the other - it is a translation of the word.

But…!..I will drop the subject.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Milliardo]

Question:

Do you Orthodox Christians believe that Rome was not orthodox in it’s teachings in 1054?

What about in 1431-1445?

Touchy subject which I’d rather not go into, though in general the Orthodox Church does see that Rome as moved much away after 1054. Recent events seem to show that this is more or less softening to some degree in some jurisdictions, which should be a good start.

 

[Hesychios]

Touchy subject which I’d rather not go into, though in general the Orthodox Church does see that Rome as moved much away after 1054. Recent events seem to show that this is more or less softening to some degree in some jurisdictions, which should be a good start.

Quite so.

I hesitate to say either. The fact is we cannot return to 1054AD, or 1053AD, aside from the fact that it is impossible, the church was on the cusp of schism.

It would be like rewinding to the title credits of a bad movie, hit “play” and you get exactly the same result you got before…the same old bad movie.

I don’t know how developed the Latin idea of Purgatory was at that point (1054AD). The Greek Fathers seem to have been surprised by it at later meetings. The big longstanding issue was the filioque, which is really two issues, not one, and should be looked at that way.

The final “issue” if one could call it that, was Papal authority which was a church discipline of the west, not a dogma at the time.

To make any more comments along these lines would be unnecessary right now, I think.

Michael

 

[dessert]

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.

So does this mean it is in like a venial sin but not a mortal sin?

 

[holdencaulfield]

So does this mean it is in like a venial sin but not a mortal sin?

? what is a venial sin?

 

[dessert]

So…using your logic I would say, " the beautiful, beautiful, flower; and fragrant, fragrant - filled the air, air…"

Katolikos = catholic = universal. One is not a description of the other - it is a translation of the word.

But…!..I will drop the subject.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

My dictionary meaning of universal ,(1)of all; belonging to all; concerning all; done by all; (2) existing everywhere (3) moving in all directions e.g. a universal joint so take your pick.
Universalist ; this is actually in my dictionary but may not be recognized any longer; definition is a member of a Protestant church holding the belief that all people will finally be saved.

That is a better way to put the meaning as it should be

Catholic “universal” Church
Catholic meaning universal not universal meaning Catholic
Because the OP capitalized Catholic actually designated it to mean Roman anyways. “Of the Pope”

We could not say a large, fat boy because large has so many more meanings, other than fat.
Largely obese would work.

 

[dessert]

? what is a venial sin?

pardonable