To our beloved, Orthodox brethren...

[Mickey]

No. But I suspect you don’t know the contrary to be a fact either. All I know is that there are no infallible Magisterial documents of the Church which makes purgatorial fire a de fide teaching.

Well, he begins with, I****t is a divinely revealed truth. You are saying that part of his comment is disconnected with this proclamation. But I believe that it is all a part of his proclamation.

I think anyone can see that how the anti-Council bishops represented the Council does not exactly coincide with what the Council actually decreed.

That is how you see it. I think that there were many issues that were glossed over and rushed–for whatever reasons. I believe that it is a great blessing that St Mark and other bishops and clergy and laity disagree with this “council”. If there is going to be union, that union should be a “true” union.

May it come to fruition one day.

I accept that.

God bless you!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

The Latin Church claims that the Roman Pontiff is the pastor of the entire Church having full, supreme, and universal power.

The term “Latin Church” should be replaced by “Catholic Church.” I agree that “power” is a really bad word to use. “Service” or “solicitude” would be a better term, and I think the canons of the Catholic Church should be changed to remove the word “power,” whether it refers to the Pope, patriarchs, bishops or synods.

I do not believe that this is in accordance with Apostolic Canon 34.

Apostolic Canon 34 binds every grouping of bishops, whether it be metropolical, patriarchal or universal (unless you believe that all the bishops of the Church cannot consitute a group).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

The term “Latin Church” should be replaced by “Catholic Church.”

Actually, the CCC uses the word “Church”. But I think you knew what I meant.

I agree that “power” is a really bad word to use.

Yes.

Apostolic Canon 34 binds every grouping of bishops, whether it be metropolical, patriarchal or universal (unless you believe that all the bishops of the Church cannot consitute a group).

AC 34 refers to primacy. And of course many Latin/Eastern Catholics and Orthodox have a different understanding of the primacy.

This is what the CCC says this about the Pope’s “power”:

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered (CCC #882).

I think this is a contradiction of the meaning of “primacy” as set forth by Apostolic Canon 34.

 

[mardukm]

Well, he begins with, I****t is a divinely revealed truth.
You are saying that part of his comment is disconnected with this proclamation. But I believe that it is all a part of his proclamation.

Sure, it’s a part of the proclamation as a whole. But in that particular sentence, the only “divinely revealed truth” he is referring to is exactly what is contained in the sentence, followed by the word “that,” which is a preposition denoting equivalence. If he wanted to include the rest of it, he would have added an “and.”

Since we can’t agree on it., why don’t you ask one of the apologists in CAF if the Pope is claiming that purgatorial fire is part of “divinely revealed truth?”

I think that there were many issues that were glossed over and rushed–for whatever reasons.

The matter of Purgatorial fire was certainly not glossed over or rushed at the Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Sure, it’s a part of the proclamation as a whole. But in that particular sentence, the only “divinely revealed truth” he is referring to is exactly what is contained in the sentence, followed by the word “that,” which is a preposition denoting equivalence. If he wanted to include the rest of it, he would have added an “and.”

I think that your argument using prepositions is quite weak. But if that is what you have----so be it.

Since we can’t agree on it., why don’t you ask one of the apologists in CAF if the Pope is claiming that purgatorial fire is part of “divinely revealed truth?”

Why would I ask a CAF apologist?

But I must admit some confusion. Pope Paul refers to purgatorial fire. And it was what I was taught by clergy and nuns throughout my childhood and adolescence. Now suddenly, this is not the proper teaching…and never was.

The matter of Purgatorial fire was certainly not glossed over or rushed at the Council.

No. That particular issue was rejected quickly.

 

[mardukm]

AC 34 refers to primacy.

Actually, it refers to primacy within collegiality, not just primacy.

This is what the CCC says this about the Pope’s “power”:

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered (CCC #882).

I think this is a contradiction of the meaning of “primacy” as set forth by Apostolic Canon 34.

You misunderstand both the history and intent of that phrase. First of all, that phrase is derived from the following paragraph in V1’s Decree on the Primacy:

“Furthermore, from his supreme power of governing the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has the right of freely communicating with the shepherds and flocks of the whole Church in the exercise of his office so tthat they can be instructed an dguided by him in the way of salvation. Hence, We condemn and disapprove the opinions of those who say that it can be licit to hinder the communication of the supreme head with the shephers and flocks; or those who make this communication subject to the secular power in such a way that they claim whatever is decreed for the government of the Church by the Apostolic See or by its authority has not binding force unless it is confirmed by the placet of the secular power.”

So we see that the teaching does not refer to the ability of the Pope to do anything he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants. It simply, rather, refers only to 1) the ability of the Pope to communicate with the Church in the exercise of his teaching ministry, and 2) the use of the Pope’s free will in the exercise of his ministry, unrestrained or uncompelled by the secular power. It certainly does not mean that it is within the Pope’s prerogative to act contrary to the laws of the Church, to teach contrary to Sacred Tradition, or to violate the prerogatives of his brother bishops.

In what way do you think that teaching violates the Apostolic Canon?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I think that your argument using prepositions is quite weak. But if that is what you have----so be it.

You get a weak argument, you get a weak response.
My argument that purgatorial fire has never been given de fide status by any infallible Magisterial body of the Catholic Church was the better one, but since you simply avoided it by sticking to the text of the encyclical…

Why would I ask a CAF apologist?

Just to get a third opinion on the teaching of the Catholic Church.

But I must admit some confusion. Pope Paul refers to purgatorial fire. And it was what I was taught by clergy and nuns throughout my childhood and adolescence. Now suddenly, this is not the proper teaching…and never was.

If you were a Latin, then why should it confuse you? It was a standard teaching in the Latin Church, but the Latin Church is not the whole Church.

No. That particular issue was rejected quickly.

Exactly - which is why it found no place in the decrees of the Council. Which begs the question of why Mark of Ephesus even brought it up in his letter against the Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

You misunderstand both the history and intent of that phrase. First of all, that phrase is derived from the following paragraph in V1’s Decree on the Primacy:

Dear Marduk:

Are you trying to tell me that the first Vatican Council, which talks about the “supreme power” of the Roman Pontiff, correctly interprets primacy as it relates to AC 34. I think it is you who misunderstands the history.

 

[Mickey]

You get a weak argument, you get a weak response.

Hmmm? I thought my argument was quite strong.

My argument that purgatorial fire has never been given de fide status by any infallible Magisterial body of the Catholic Church was the better one, but since you simply avoided it by sticking to the text of the encyclical.

Yet Pope Paul VI’s encyclical seems to indicate otherwise—and it was taught for many, many years. If a papal encyclical begins with: "I****t is a divinely revealed truth", doesn’t it mean that this is de fide status???

If you were a Latin, then why should it confuse you? It was a standard teaching in the Latin Church, but the Latin Church is not the whole Church.

Are not all Eastern Churches to submit to the Roman Pontiff? So the Latin Churches were teaching incorrectly all these years?

Exactly - which is why it found no place in the decrees of the Council. Which begs the question of why Mark of Ephesus even brought it up in his letter against the Council.

Did the decrees say that the “doctrine” of purgatory would be scrapped in the event of a union?

 

[mardukm]

Are you trying to tell me that the first Vatican Council, which talks about the “supreme power” of the Roman Pontiff, correctly interprets primacy as it relates to AC 34.

Of course. That’s because 1) I’ve read extracts from the Fathers of the Council, the “behind the scenes” talks on the intentions of the Fathers of the Council, and 2) I understand that it was an incomplete Council. Vatican 2 finished the work of Vatican 1, and the collegial intent of the first Council became more explicit. So I don’t have a monarchial understanding of the Papacy.

Still, you haven’t answered my question - in what way do you think that teaching (you quoted) contradicts apostolic Canon 34?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Of course.

Hence our stalemate.

Still, you haven’t answered my question - in what way do you think that teaching (you quoted) contradicts apostolic Canon 34?

I do not see the canon making any reference to the **“the Roman Pontiff, as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church having full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered”. **

And I do not agree that V1 re-interpreted the canon.

Perhaps there are other Orthodox here who can articulate this better than I.
Hesychios? Prodromos?

I must be departing from the internet for a few days.

God bless.

 

[mardukm]

Yet Pope Paul VI’s encyclical seems to indicate otherwise—and it was taught for many, many years. If a papal encyclical begins with: "I****t is a divinely revealed truth", doesn’t it mean that this is de fide status???

Yes, what was contained in the sentence has de fide status. Now, you show me an infallible Magisterial document that claims that Purgatorial fire is a divinely revealed truth.

Are not all Eastern Churches to submit to the Roman Pontiff?

On matters of universal faith and morals, of course! Now, can you prove to us that purgatorial fire has ever been a universal teaching of the Church?

So the Latin Churches were teaching incorrectly all these years?

The Latin Catholic Church teaches purgatorial fire according to their particular Tradition. And that Tradition does not contradict anything defined by the Councils or the unanimous belief of the Church. So it is a legitimate theologoumenon. There are some Latin theologoumena which I personally believe are in error, a few even dangerously so, but this certainly is not one of them.

Did the decrees say that the “doctrine” of purgatory would be scrapped in the event of a union?

No. Did the decrees say that the doctrine of purgatorial fire would be forced on the Easterns in the event of a union?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I do not see the canon making any reference to the "the Roman Pontiff, as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church having full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered".

And I don’t see anything in the Canon that states he is not. The Canon is just about the relationship between the head bishop and his brother bishops. It doesn’t define or describe the prerogatives of individual bishops, of whatever grade, and I don’t see why you expect it should.

And I do not agree that V1 re-interpreted the canon.

Where in the world did I say that?

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

Yes, what was contained in the sentence has de fide status. Now, you show me an infallible Magisterial document that claims that Purgatorial fire is a divinely revealed truth.

The whole message carries the proclamation of divinity. Your prepositional argument does not work.

Now, can you prove to us that purgatorial fire has ever been a universal teaching of the Church?

Pope Paul VI has said so (de fide). I will try to look up the dozens of clergy and nuns who taught it to me yeears ago to see what they have to say.

The Latin Catholic Church teaches purgatorial fire according to their particular Tradition.

Aha!!!

No. Did the decrees say that the doctrine of purgatorial fire would be forced on the Easterns in the event of a union?

Knowing that the Orthodox were not going to accept the “doctrine” of purgatory. Do you not think it would have been a grand idea to clarify some language? There were (and are) many trust issues between the two Churches.
St Mark was very wise.

 

[Mickey]

And I don’t see anything in the Canon that states he is not.

Oh, that’s a good argument.

The Canon is just about the relationship between the head bishop and his brother bishops.

Oh, then I suppose we are in agreement. I must have misunderstood you.

I’m outta here. Ciao!

 

[mardukm]

The whole message carries the proclamation of divinity. Your prepositional argument does not work.

Neither does a claim based on an ambiguity from a document which no Catholic claims is infallible.

Pope Paul VI has said so (de fide).

Would you happen to know if that was an ex cathedra decree?

I will try to look up the dozens of clergy and nuns who taught it to me yeears ago to see what they have to say.

Would these be Latin clergy and nuns, or Eastern or Oriental clergy and nuns?

Aha!!!

Knowing that the Orthodox were not going to accept the “doctrine” of purgatory. Do you not think it would have been a grand idea to clarify some language? There were (and are) many trust issues between the two Churches.
St Mark was very wise.

He was at the Council and participated in the debates and knew the outcome. It would have been wiser for him to avoid the inflammatory (no pun intended ) rhetoric.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Oh, that’s a good argument.

Just about as good an argument as expecting to find any statement on the prerogatives of bishops, of whatever grade, in the apostolic canon.:

Oh, then I suppose we are in agreement. I must have misunderstood you.

:crying: All that mental energy expended for that? I suppose I should rather give a :hug1:.

I’m outta here. Ciao!

Blessings

 

[josie_L]

Neither does a claim based on an ambiguity from a document which no Catholic claims is infallible.

Would you happen to know if that was an ex cathedra decree?

Would these be Latin clergy and nuns, or Eastern or Oriental clergy and nuns?



He was at the Council and participated in the debates and knew the outcome. It would have been wiser for him to avoid the inflammatory (no pun intended ) rhetoric.

Blessings

He did mention he was a Ruthenian Catholic. I’m not sure what the difference is between a Ruthenian and a Latin though.

 

[prodromos]

Funny. I thought it was a matter of different interpretations of when the Last Supper was performed.

Funny, no. Ignorant, yes.

Anyway, if they were not forced to offer unleavened bread, then they were not azymites. By claiming to have been forced to be azymites, yes, they did misrepresent the Council.

By agreeing with what they considered heresy, they too were in heresy. Thus they did not in any way misrepresent the Council.

So I take it you’re one of those who believe the issue of the use of leavened or unleavened bread is a legitimate reason for disunity. I guess you’re one of those hard-liners who look down on the Oriental Orthodox. I certainly don’t see how you’re going to reconcile your view with the fact that one of the Churches in the Oriental Orthodox Communion use unleavened bread in the Eucharistic Liturgy. You won’t get anywhere yelling “heresy! Heresy!” with the OO or the CC regarding the use of unleavened bread.

I have no idea what the theology is behind the use of unleavened bread in the Coptic Church, however since they have always used unleavened bread I have no issues with them. The same cannot be said for Rome however since for the first six to eight centuries they used leavened bread along with the rest of the Church. When they changed to using unleavened bread, as I explained in my earlier post, it was understood to mean a change in theology.

Mark of Ephesus’ whole letter was to persuade people to reject the Council, and writes the following in the letter:
“…while they toegether with the Latins, desire immediately after death to receive according their merits, and for those in an intermediate condition, who have died in repeencetence, they give a purgatorial fire (which is not identical with that of hell) so that, as theysay, having purified their souls by it after death, they also together with the righteous will enjoy the Kindgom of Heaven.”
He’s accusing those who accepted the Council “together with the Latins” of believing in Purgatorial fire, even though Purgatorial fire was EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY excluded from the decrees of the Council.

In the book translated by Popoff, it states that on the 6th of July the Council decree on the union of the Churches was read out loud in Latin and in Greek by Cardinal Julian and Metropolitan Bessarion of Nicaea. Then followed the exposition of the Doctrine on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, on the Wafer, Purgatory and the Papal authority. Also, the Bull of Union with the Armenians, promulgated in November of the same year, makes explicit reference to the description of purgatory in the Florence Union CouncilSeventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated earlier in this sacred council, recording how the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and that the phrase and the Son was licitly and reasonably added to the creed of Constantinople. Also that the body of the Lord is effected in leavened or unleavened wheat bread; and what is to be believed about the pains of purgatory and hell, about the life of the blessed and about suffrages offered for the dead.
ewtn.com/library/councils/Florence.htm

In these, and other matters, Mark of Ephesus and other anti-Council proponents were guilty of misrepresenting the Council and were not entirely honest with their flock.

The only one who has misrepresented anything here is you. You have read the account of the Council of Florence given by Syropulus, who gives as unbiased an account as is possible. The character of St Mark of Ephesus is constantly shown to be upright and pious, yet you have no qualms about labelling him as a liar when it suits your interpretation of events. You can please stop calling me brother. Unrepentant liars are no brother of mine.

John

 

[mardukm]

He did mention he was a Ruthenian Catholic. I’m not sure what the difference is between a Ruthenian and a Latin though.

Ruthenian Catholics are from the Eastern Byzantine Tradition (like the Eastern Orthodox, but Ruthenians are Catholics). Their closest counterpart in the Eastern Orthodox Church are the Ukrainian Orthodox, MP.

Though brother Mickey was a Ruthenian Catholic, he went to Latin Catholic schools. I don’t think Eastern or Oriental Catholics generally had or have schools like the Latin Catholic Church does. If an Eastern or Oriental Catholic wants to go to a Catholic school, their only option would be one where only Latin theology is taught. There’s nothing wrong with that per se, but it has the danger of destroying one’s Eastern or Oriental identity.

Blessings,
Marduk