Why Doesn't Rome Give Up Her Heresies and Come Back into Communion With The Eastern Christian Churches?

[Mickey]

I’m just not giving in to despair

We should never give in to despair—or compromise.

 

[chris_molter]

What does Dante have to do with the doctine of Limbo which the Roman Catholic Church has taught?

You should be reading Roman Catholic Theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, not fiction.

We don’t include either of those august Saints’ writings in the Canon either. Just because it was widely believed, or even taught, doesn’t make it doctrine. Limbo has never been defined as doctrine, despite your assertion above. Which means we are free as faithful Catholics to believe it or not.

Personally, I never thought it made much sense, but it was one way of trying to figure out what happens to unbaptized infants etc. Coming from an Eastern theological viewpoint, limbo REALLY makes no sense, so I’m not surprised you see it as ludicrous. (and you’re more than welcome to see it that way and happily remain in full communion with Rome, just don’t tell us Latins what we believe in the meantime!)

 

[Christy74]

I don’t know alot about this subject. Is their a good weblink that explains the basic issues dividing East and West?

Is Orthodoxy’s rejection of the Popes as head of the Church based more on politics or serious theological grounds?

Thanks

Theological

For a great explanation of how the two Churches are different you may want to read: Clark Carlton’s book: The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church.

 

[chris_molter]

We should never give in to despair—or compromise.

I guess that depends on what you’re compromising.

I just don’t like approaching the whole idea from a combative standpoint. I don’t think that’s what our Lord would want. Although I get the feeling sometimes that we ‘Latins’ (Papists, Romanists, whatever cheeky perjorative you prefer), are seen as barely Christian by some of the 'net Orthodox (who seem to be mostly converts, for some reason…)

Honestly, if someone thinks the obstacles to full communion are insurmountable, then they should just leave the other side alone and get on with their life. There’s a lot better and more Christian ways to spend time than throwing rocks at people.

 

[Mickey]

I guess that depends on what you’re compromising.

Exactly.

I get the feeling sometimes that we ‘Latins’ (Papists, Romanists, whatever cheeky perjorative you prefer), are seen as barely Christian by some of the 'net Orthodox (who seem to be mostly converts, for some reason…)

Oh please…the ad hominems are a two way street.

Honestly, if someone thinks the obstacles to full communion are insurmountable, then they should just leave the other side alone and get on with their life.

With God, all things are possible. Our ways are not God’s ways.

 

[Christy74]

We don’t include either of those august Saints’ writings in the Canon either. Just because it was widely believed, or even taught, doesn’t make it doctrine. Limbo has never been defined as doctrine, despite your assertion above. Which means we are free as faithful Catholics to believe it or not.

Personally, I never thought it made much sense, but it was one way of trying to figure out what happens to unbaptized infants etc. Coming from an Eastern theological viewpoint, limbo REALLY makes no sense, so I’m not surprised you see it as ludicrous. (and you’re more than welcome to see it that way and happily remain in full communion with Rome, just don’t tell us Latins what we believe in the meantime!)

You are going against the Roman Catholic Church! Lord have mercy on you! Even I know that Catholics are not supposed to be “Cafeteria Catholics”!

Please take a look at the early posts on here which outline the teaching and sources.

You are correct that the Roman Catholic Church seems to be taking a step back on this one because you will not find much in the way of recent publications on the doctrine.

By the way, the Canons simply provide instruction how to put certain things into practice (example: how, when and where to receive the Eucharist) and it also lists the rights of the laity, etc. The canons are not a text book on defining doctrine. Perhaps you’d like to read it. You can find it on www.vatican.va, the vatican’s official website.

 

[traillius]

We do need unity, first with each other, and then with the protestants. The threat of islam is growing, it is taking over western europe. Only a united christendom will be able to resist the tide. Islam won’t be satisfied with northern africa, the middle east, and parts of europe. They want the World. Christian unity is the only way. So my eastern brethren: do you want to fight against Rome AND the muslims? Or would you prefer to fight one war only, with western catholics as allies? Make your choice.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

That’s our Creed, pure and unaltered. Written by the GREEK Fathers in CONSTANTINOPLE who, as it turns out, were NOT in communion with Rome at the time.

I cannot be Orthodox.

Because you can’t accept the origianl Ecumenical Creed?

We pray for that reunion with real charity.

Ditto.

If it were to happen, there would be no “latinization” of the east;

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

no changes from what the Fathers teach.

like filioque?

We only ask them to look at what we teach with charity.

I actually like a lot in the CCC.

Their own faith demands they reconcile with Peter’s See

Antioch is still in communion.

As for Rome, let the pope confess the Orthodox Faith, and he will be first.

Actully it’s Christ.

The Orthodox objection to the Ravenna definition as being between those in communion with the Vatican and those Churches in communion with Constantinople is that it is NOT the Orthodox Faith. Constantinople is not the font of communion, the Church is. The diptychs are mutual and reciprocal, and in communion with the Fathers who passed the Church to us. Constaninople has been struck from them when they erred. Again the practice of the Orthodox on this matter is that of the Early Church.

yes, the Vatican claims are mutually exclusive of the ecclessiology of the Ancient Church. But as the Ancient Church always worked for reconciliation (the DIvine Liturgy (written in the present form 5th) has prayers for the healing of schism and heresy), so do we, and pray that those divergences might be brought back to 100% Orthodoxy.

As we say, as regards the ancient Pentarcy: Let the Pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith, and he will first.

This is not new. St. Symeon of Thessalonica (15th cent., after the sack of Constantinople) writes:

One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff … Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself

books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&dq=primacy+of+Peter+meyendorff&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=ILnGNCQP-H&sig=Ulq1ul6c1RMC7LT9JXLNn1OimG0&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA86,M1
p. 86

When the pope of Rome 4 centuries latter wrote a letter addressed to the Orthodox Faithful in an attempt to go over the Patriarchs heads, the Patriarchs responded:

In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold…Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): “nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne”…As to the supremacy, since we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a f’ew words, “I preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them.”…For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way…But, finally, his Holiness says (p. ix. l.12) that the fourth Ecumenical Council (which by mistake he quite transfers from Chalcedon to Carthage), when it read the epistle of Pope Leo I, cried out, “Peter has thus spoken by Leo.” It was so indeed. But his Holiness ought not to overlook how, and after what examination, our fathers cried out, as they did, in praise of Leo…Of more than six hundred fathers assembled in the Counci1 of Chalcedon, about two hundred of the wisest were appointed by the Council to examine both as to language and sense the said epistle of Leo; nor only so, but to give in writing and with their signatures their own judgment upon it, whether it were orthodox or not…And thus all in succession: “The epistle corresponds,” "the epistle is consonant,“the epistle agrees in sense,” and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself: But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, “Peter has so spoken,” or anything of like honor, but this also, “Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church.”

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
.

(especially if you read the Greek Fathers.)

Like Polycrated of Asia? Firmilian? St. Photius?

In general, they don’t want to reconcile

not at the price of 20 pieces of silver.

they are Churches seperated by ethnic boundaries;

Not to be redunant, but to repeat what I have said SEVERAL times, I have been to nearly all the autocephalous Churches and quite a few autonomous ones, and even Western Rite Orthodox, and I have had no problem communion. And, unlike all those churches under the Vatican, we all say the exact same Creed, the original one that the Fathers set their seal on.

afraid of the influence of a truly “catholic” church.

one where all the world is Rome. All Rome, all the time.

 

[chris_molter]

Exactly.
Oh please…the ad hominems are a two way street.
With God, all things are possible. Our ways are not god’s ways.

I didn’t mean to imply it was a one way street. There’s enough of that junk on both sides of the divide.

and Amen.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You’re right. Fault can be found on both sides. I would say, however, that great strides have been made to make Latins understand their Liturgy is not “better.” Great strides have been made so that Catholics can respect all different rites of Catholicism and that these rites are beneficial to the universiality of the Church. How much further (practically) must be taken before Rome can be trusted not to exsert this “latinization” but to respect the Patriarchs responsibility in their disciplines?

We cannot change the past. We hope and pray for the future.

AMEN.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No the Roman Catholic Teaching of Limbo is that Limbo is located in Hell = 2 places which are eternal after death remain Heaven and Hell. Limbo supposedly is the “highest” level of Hell.

Isn’t it a lovely thought, your wife, mother, grandmother, aunt, etc. who have had a miscarriage get to know that at least their child is in hell for all eternity! Such a comfort! Especially since their deceased child never having the opportunity to breathe, let alone get old enough to sin, was completely innocent.

No wonder people think that God the Father is mean!

The Melkite Catholic Church does not teach this and I am having a very difficult time understanding why we would be in union with a Church that does. It seems so crazy!

Even the Vatican is consigning limbo to limbo. So no reason to cut ties over it (there are plenty of others, though).

 

[Mickey]

I didn’t mean to imply it was a one way street. There’s enough of that junk on both sides of the divide.

and Amen.

Amen my brother in Christ.

 

[chris_molter]

You are going against the Roman Catholic Church! Lord have mercy on you! Even I know that Catholics are not supposed to be “Cafeteria Catholics”!

Please take a look at the early posts on here which outline the teaching and sources.

You are correct that the Roman Catholic Church seems to be taking a step back on this one because you will not find much in the way of recent publications on the doctrine.

I did. None of that defined limbo as a doctrine. You’re attributing things to the Church that the Church doesn’t attribute to herself.

The Church can take steps in any direction it likes so long as it doesn’t contradict itself. By moving away from a long held THEORY, the Church does not contradict itself. If it had defined limbo as doctrine (which is impossible), then the Church would have proven itself the largest and longest fraud in history.

Yes, may the Lord have mercy on us both.

I do take some exception to your implication that I’m somehow a “Cafeteria Catholic”. It’s unfortunate that in your argumentation you have to resort to unnecessary and un-Christian attacks.

I don’t recall seeing this posted, but here’s the Catechism on “limbo”:

1261: As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

We do need unity, first with each other, and then with the protestants. The threat of islam is growing, it is taking over western europe. Only a united christendom will be able to resist the tide. Islam won’t be satisfied with northern africa, the middle east, and parts of europe. They want the World. Christian unity is the only way. So my eastern brethren: do you want to fight against Rome AND the muslims? Or would you prefer to fight one war only, with western catholics as allies? Make your choice.

Florence.

 

[Mickey]

Florence.

 

[buffgbob]

I beg you to read what “St.” Photius wrote and his history. Particularly his acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of Rome (before Rome favored Ignatius, the true Patriarch.)

 

[Christy74]

chris_molter:
1261 is the step back I was refering to.

Now compare that to prior Catechisms the Roman Catholic Church has produced over the last 1000 years.

 

[wanner47]

Christy –

I’m afraid you are very much mistaken.

Will you please take the time to read what the Church actually teaches about limbo?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[buffgbob]

I think Christy missed one of my questions that I posted earlier because it was an edit.

Honestly, I don’t know how or why you can consider yourself Melkite; since the Melkite *Catholic *Church is in agreement with Rome on all doctrine, which you *clearly *despise. Why Melkite? Why not Orthodox which clearly supports your views better?

melkite.org/Melkite.htm

The Role of Melkites in the Universal Church

Melkites serve as a witness to the Roman Catholic Church. We have, for centuries, maintained such practices as a married clergy, the election of bishops by the Church as a whole, collegial government and so forth. Many of these features are unknown to Roman Catholics and many Catholics feel that our practices may be more suited to today’s world than their Roman counterpoint. Our presence is a witness to the universality of the Catholic Church.

Melkites also serve as a witness to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. To the extent that we are true to ourselves, we exist as a living example that one can be true to a different heritage and yet be truly Catholic, i.e. in communion with Rome. Thus we exist as an example, for good or bad, of what other Churches can expect if and when they too achieve a union with the Church of Rome.

Melkites also provide a different option for people searching for Christ. Any church exists to bring its people to Christ. There are many for who the ‘style of Christian living’ practiced in our Church is more compatible than contemporary Western forms. For these people the Melkite Church can serve a very important function; it can be their way to God.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

No the Roman Catholic Teaching of Limbo is that Limbo is located in Hell = 2 places which are eternal after death remain Heaven and Hell. Limbo supposedly is the “highest” level of Hell.

Again, I beg a citation. Probably the third time it has been asked for. Can you offer one?

Isn’t it a lovely thought, your wife, mother, grandmother, aunt, etc. who have had a miscarriage get to know that at least their child is in hell for all eternity! Such a comfort! Especially since their deceased child never having the opportunity to breathe, let alone get old enough to sin, was completely innocent.

No wonder people think that God the Father is mean!

The emotive sarcasm isn’t helpful, especially when predicated on a teaching you won’t source. It would be a sad thing for any mother to believe that her unremorseful child who died in a state of grave sin spent eternity in hell. So really, by this emotive logic, even if what you offer without citation were the official teaching (it is not) people who have just as much right to have righteous indignation at the mean-ness of Orthodoxy…

The Melkite Catholic Church does not teach this and I am having a very difficult time understanding why we would be in union with a Church that does. It seems so crazy!

Not if you look at the real issues. You may or may not agree with the foundations or arguments for Petrine primacy and the role of the Holy Father, but that is where discussing issues of union and communion begin and end, not Limbo.