The Universal Church

[ziapueblo]

Finally . . .

“If this cause is wholeheartedly promoted, the Council hopes that the barrier dividing the Eastern Church and Western Church will be removed, and that at last there may be but the one dwelling, firmly established on Christ Jesus, the cornerstone, who will make both one.(38)“

This is a very interesting comment. The Catholic Church acknowledges that there is a “barrier” between East and West which it (Catholic Church) hopes to “be removed” so that “at last” the “one dwelling” be “established.” The “schism” between Rome and the East is mutual* and is from within the Church @steve-b, not outside of it.

I’ll find more properly referenced citations from the other two documents. As for know I will get some much needed shut eye.

Blessed beginning of the Great Fast to you and I hope it is fruitful!

ZP

 

[mcq72]

I seem to vaguely remember that as well. I wonder if they were someone really important…

Or maybe a has been…or was it an I am?.. lol

 

[gohjedrek]

A friend of mine who is a Byzantine Catholic communes at an OCA parish where his summer home is. They all know he’s BC but no one has a problem, he has become part of the community.

Wow, that’s interesting. I think it’s nice that the OCA parish respect communion with the BC.

 

[mcq72]

DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

From Wiki:
“Traditionalist Catholics argue that this document contradicts the teachings of popes who preceded the Second Vatican Council and gives a false representation of the unity of the Catholic Church. They cite documents such as Mortalium Animos (1928) by Pope Pius XI,”

Apparently like many things Catholic, a work in progress, a redevelopment .

Seems Unitatis ( Second Vatican) trumps Mortalium (1928) , one newest, the other older.

Won’t be the first time popes or bishops conflict with each other, or “tradition” hinders reform, in my opinion. Plus another case where something old (real old) comes back as something “new”, even novel to hardliners.

There is hope.

 

[ziapueblo]

There is one rule of intercommunion club and that is, don’t talk about intercommunion club. Zealots on both sides.

ZP

 

[Isaac14]

There is one rule of intercommunion club and that is, don’t talk about intercommunion club . Zealots on both sides.

True enough.

Indeed @gohjedrek, going “by the book” no intercommunion should be allowed. But I think most priests on all sides of the schism also follow the idea of trying to do what’s best for any particular individual’s soul.

My OCA parish communes Copts & Ethiopians, largely because for them to visit a parish of their own communion would involve a 4+ hour drive in any direction. Their spiritual care is significantly more important than a rigid application of the rules.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Not presumed. If one meets the criteria,

Hmmm, “presumed” and "if meeting requirements " are pretty close, for there is some subjectivity to what is “knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, and then refusing it”

Do you think I know that the Roman Catholic Church was made necesary for salvation by Jesus?

The CC proclamation is subjective and maybe mind readers are needed beyond that.

After all the scripture conversations and history we’ve been through? Yeah I think you know.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Let’s be clear. the Traditions we follow are oral & written that come from the apostles

It is clearly disputed…you clearly know that, a thousand posts later…lol

ok, ok

if we followed Paul, he would have ended the conversation at 2 tries.

 

[Isaac14]

if we followed Paul, he would have ended the conversation at 2 tries.

Yet you keep replying…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Or was schismatic just not used?

So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy.

How does that answer what I asked you for?

I asked for your reference you are using, & "properly referenced"

AND

For some context on schism

According to the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Press Service, Archbishop Yevstratiy claimed that Orthodox Christians must choose whether to follow the Russian Orthodox “into schism” or “remain in unity with the Ecumenical Patriarch (Bartholomew I of Constantinople) through the Local Ukrainian Church.”.
Excerpted From: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople

So

How is it you say to me?
“So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy.”

The Russian Orthodox are the majority of Orthodoxy. And THEY went into schism from Constantinople?

 

[Isaac14]

I asked for your reference you are using, & " properly referenced"

@ziapueblo did this for me with his reference above.

So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy. ”

I stand behind my words 100%. You have hidden behind your “properly referenced” quotes to say without actually saying that Orthodox and Protestants are condemned to hell for not submitting to the Pope, all the while ignoring those references from documents and sources that contradict your agenda.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

if we followed Paul, he would have ended the conversation at 2 tries.

Yet you keep replying…

Think of it as a charitable act

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I asked for your reference you are using, & " properly referenced"

@ziapueblo did this for me with his reference above.

So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy. ”

I stand behind my words 100%. You have hidden behind your “properly referenced” quotes to say without actually saying that Orthodox and Protestants are condemned to hell for not submitting to the Pope, all the while ignoring those references from documents and sources that contradict your agenda.

IOW,

Schism is still there. As I’ve been posting from the links I provide.

 

[Isaac14]

Think of it as a charitable act

Funny that. I can say you specifically are turning me away from the Catholic Church.

 

[Isaac14]

Schism is still there. As I’ve been posting from the links I provide.

And ignoring what is posted by Zia because they contradict your selective quotations to paint a picture at odds with the Catholic Church.

 

[steve-b]

I asked for your reference you are using, & " properly referenced"

Isaac14:

@ziapueblo did this for me with his reference above.

Isaac14:

So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy. ”

I edited that last response to show that you are the one who posted that comment, NOT ME.

Isaac14:

I stand behind my words 100%. You have hidden behind your “properly referenced” quotes to say without actually saying that Orthodox and Protestants are condemned to hell for not submitting to the Pope, all the while ignoring those references from documents and sources that contradict your agenda.

Re: ziapueblo’s response, AND “UR” , he validates that the CC wants an end to schism, however schism is still in place. So my links I used are still current, in spite of all the personal opinions

AND

Why didn’t you respond to this?

For some context on schism

According to the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Press Service, Archbishop Yevstratiy claimed that Orthodox Christians must choose whether to follow the Russian Orthodox “into schism” or “remain in unity with the Ecumenical Patriarch (Bartholomew I of Constantinople) through the Local Ukrainian Church.” .

Excerpted From: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople

BTW your statement So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy. ” was out of line.

 

[Isaac14]

he validates that the CC wants an end to schism, however schism is still in place.

And he made the point, which you ignore, that the schism is within the church which rather than one party from another.

Why didn’t you respond to this?

What is the relevance? We’re talking about the Catholics and Orthodox, not matters internal to the respective churches.

BTW your statement So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy. ” was out of line.

Feel free to report me, but I stand behind it. I read the agreed documents from the dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Church and see a very respectful tone that indicates we are fellow Christians and fellow members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Yet others contend that the position of the Catholic Church is that the Orthodox are schismatics condemned to hell for refusing to submit to the Pope. Both can’t be true, but if they are, then the Catholic party to that dialogue is two-faced and portraying a false message to the Orthodox.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Schism is still there. As I’ve been posting from the links I provide.

And ignoring what is posted by Zia because they contradict your selective quotations to paint a picture at odds with the Catholic Church.

Unlike you, I linked to what Zia said, so anyone can see exactly what he said. Schism is NOT over.

 

[ziapueblo]

Re: ziapueblo’s response, AND “UR” , he validates that the CC wants an end to schism, however schism is still in place. So my links I used are still current, in spite of all the personal opinions

No doubt the CC wants an end to the separation between East and West, which, as you state “UR” speaks too. However, CC also acknowledges that the separation is mutual (Rome and the East). These are not my PERSONAL OPINIONS but the OPINION of the CC.

I am just presenting documentation properly referenced and others may do what they wish with it.

ZP

 

[MichaelP3]

BTW your statement So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy. ” was out of line.

Steve-b. I am really perplexed that YOU would think that.