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

[buffgbob]

Christy,

If I was Isa I wouldn’t want someone like you cheering for me. It reminds me deeply of Augustine:

… and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor"

(Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

I find it very insulting that you consider yourself “Catholic.” You clearly are not. You are a clearly a bitter [insert arbitrary ethnicity] Orthodox. I don’t go around parading myself as Orthodox/Protestant etc. You don’t believe in Catholic ideas? Try not to pollute the beautiful Melkite tradition.

 

[adstrinity]

Well, this may be a start: ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

“There are many other differences, often the product of culture. Also, it is noteworthy that many of these differences, whether profound or not, do not apply to the contemporary religious situation. Ecumenism has brought great confusion, so that it is not always easy to say with any precision what Roman Catholics believe, while so-called Orthodox have abandoned the traditional teachings of the Church.”

This coupled with he didn’t state the Catholic perspective in full truth and he made some molehills, mountains and that he referred to us as, “Papist,” makes me think he is not the best source for the differences between the two churches, but, is very telling for Christy74.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Oops.

Honest mistake.

Peter,Paul,Linus,Cletus,Clement and Evaristus were killed before Ignatius.

Acually, according to the Apostolic Constitutions, which were accepted by the Sixth Council, St. Linus predeceased St. Peter.

Even if you think that the bishops really rebuked Victor,they had no authority over Victor,just as Paul had no authority over Kephas (Rock). Victor had authority over them.

The Church at Jerusalem in Acts 15 said otherwise (St. Peter seems to have been corrected by then, however).

So Victor thought. The Church thought otherwise.

“At his (Pope Victor’s) instigation, councils were held both at Rome and at other centers, from Gaul to Mesopotamia, and majority opinion sided with him (the Pope). The churches of Asia Minor, however, refused to abandon the age-old Quartodeciman custom of observing Easter on the 14th of Nisan, whatever the day of the week on which it fell. Victor thereupon proclaimed their exclusion from communion, not simply with Rome but with the Church generally.” (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 12)

Dictionary of Popes. Does it have a Nihil Obstat? It embellishes Pope Victor’s role.

The source acctually says:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxiv.html
2. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus,bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor;also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote. 3. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.1. But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them…9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. 10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

Irenaeus appealed to the example of Pope Anicetus.

“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord … nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.” (Epistle of Irenaeus to Pope Victor)

OK, so the Pope of Rome wasn’t following what another Pope of Rome said. Pope Leo IX insisted we put the filioque in, we reminded him of Pope Leo III who forbade the Council of Frankfurt from inserting it and put sivler plaques of the doors of St Peter’s with the original Creed, in Greek and Latin, as the Fathers set their seal on it, with the inscription: HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith)" (VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26).

I’m sorry, you’re point again?

The condemnation of Nestorianism is a matter of faith,so it is infallible.

You said the condemnation of a heretic wasn’t infallible?

The Church doesn’t consign people to hell.

No. What’s anathema mean?

So they were disobedient to the head of the priesthood,and preferred the authority of the Emporer.

No, they preferred the enemy of heresy and disobeyed he who would aid it, like Pope Honorius would later on.

The Head of the Priesthood is the Only High Priest, Christ. But I know, that’s a difference we have with you in Ecclesiology.

The filioque doesn’t refer to the meaning of ekpoeusis.

Then it shouldn’t be in the article of the Creed that deals with it.

Catholics don’t need to be reminded that the Father is the cause of the Spirit. But it is also true that the Son is one in being with the cause of the Spirit,and so the Spirit proceeds from both.

And then it stands to reason the Son must beget Himself as He is one in being with the begotter of the Son.

The Son has all that the Father has from eternity. One in being means that they are existentially one. They share the Spirit from eternity. The Son eternally shares in the Father,and so the Son shares in the procession of the Spirit.

Then He must share in the begetting of the Son.

The Father as cause of the Spirit is not something distinct from the Father as person.

And He’s not as cause something (actually Someone) distinct from the Father as Person.

 

[adstrinity]

No. What’s anathema mean?

Cut off from the Church. It doesn’t mean damning somebody to Hell.

 

[Hesychios]

Not so fast there, pal. You and Christy keep insisting, against all the evidence provided you, that “Limbo” is an infallible teaching of the Church which must be believed by Catholics.

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I don’t recall insisting anything of the sort. I was commenting directly on your post.

Although I will state at this time that it certainly was taught to millions as if it were actual teaching of the church.

That is an historical fact.

Yet in this instance, as with many others, the Roman Catholic Church is much closer to the Orthodox - it allows theologians to speculate about it, but since it’s not been believed “always and at all times”, doesn’t insist that all Catholics have to believe it. AND NEVER HAS!

So what’s wrong with that?

It looks as though the magisterium goofed up.

Limbo was not presented as theological opinion most of the time. Perhaps that came out in seminary studies, that sort of thing. But that’s not the message that reached the people in the pews and the vestibule.

In fact, this is a symptom of a wider problem in the church. People all over the place are insisting on theology that has never been official teaching of the church. They know it too, because they are politicking for the Pope to make new proclamations of things that were never official teaching.

That’s why the Papal dogmas had to be proclaimed. Loads of people believed them for a time, but it did not satisfy the Vincentian Canon.

But no, I disagree with your idea that this tolerance of theological opinions is like the Orthodox, because the Latin attitude encourages idle speculation, the Orthodox do not. We don’t think it’s a good thing that people have differing opinions about new ideas around spiritual matters. Why should they?

Why don’t they just pack that imagination away and stick to the received Faith? There is already plenty enough to learn and study and live which we know to be True Teaching. Leave the rest alone, it can be dangerous.

 

[wanner47]

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I don’t recall insisting anything of the sort. I was commenting directly on your post.

Although I will state at this time that it certainly was taught to millions as if it were actual teaching of the church.

That is an historical fact. It looks as though the magisterium goofed up.

Limbo was not presented as theological opinion most of the time. Perhaps that came out in seminary studies, that sort of thing. But that’s not the message that reached the people in the pews and the vestibule.

In fact, this is a symptom of a wider problem in the church. People all over the place are insisting on theology that has never been official teaching of the church. They know it too, because they are politicking for the Pope to make new proclamations of things that were never official teaching.

That’s why the Papal dogmas had to be proclaimed. Loads of people believed them for a time, but it did not satisfy the Vincentian Canon.

But no, I disagree with your idea that this tolerance of theological opinions is like the Orthodox, because the Latin attitude encourages idle speculation, the Orthodox do not. We don’t think it’s a good thing that people have differing opinions about new ideas around spiritual matters. Why should they?

Why don’t they just pack that imagination away and stick to the received Faith? There is already plenty enough to learn and study and live which we know to be True Teaching. Leave the rest alone, it can be dangerous.

This article may be helpful for you. An excerpt:

In Pius XII’s day and before, private speculation had been permitted that there might be a way of salvation for such children, but official teaching was that this was not the case, as documented above. (The situation then was similar to the situation with respect to Feeneyites now: Official teaching is that it is possible for non-Catholics to be saved, but the Church still allows private speculation that this is not the case.) With the Catechism, we have a clear shift in what the magisterial texts are saying, so that now–instead of denying the possibility of salvation without baptism for such children–they are affirming at least the hope of it.

This doesn’t mean that limbo doesn’t exist, but it does mean that the Church is now actively pointing toward an alternative to limbo.

It also means that the Church’s official teaching has already changed on this point, so if you are encountering a press story that seems to imply that the Church still actively proclaims limbo and is considering whether to shift its position on limbo, the article is misleading. It has already shifted its position, as the above documents show.
**
That’s what folks in the business call “doctrinal development,” and since it does not contradict prior infallible definitions (the Church has never infallibly defined that all children dying without baptism without exception are excluded from the beatific vision) it does not pose a challenge to the integrity of Catholic dogma.**

(bolding mine)

 

[theistgal]

But no, I disagree with your idea that this tolerance of theological opinions is like the Orthodox, because the Latin attitude encourages idle speculation, the Orthodox do not. We don’t think it’s a good thing that people have differing opinions about new ideas around spiritual matters. Why should they?

Why don’t they just pack that imagination away and stick to the received Faith? There is already plenty enough to learn and study and live which we know to be True Teaching. Leave the rest alone, it can be dangerous.

Like the Toll Houses?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

LOLOLOL

Quite an interesting exchange!

Way to go Isa!

Christy have you offered the OCF website reading to your Melkite Greek Catholic pastor to get his thoughts on the matter? You bishop?

What is your litmus test for understanding something to be “truly Orthodox and Eastern”? That it is on an Orthodox apologetics website like that?

Interesting who you are cheering on… If you are a Melkite still, it seems rather obvious you don’t wish to be for long.

Just curious, how recently did you join the Melkites?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Catechisms do not define doctrines - Popes do. For example, we know exactly which Pope defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and on what date; which Pope defined the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, and on what date; etc.

So please tell us which Pope defined the “doctrine” of Limbo, on what date, and provide us with a link to the ex cathedra proclamation.

The problem is that even when he doesn’t speak “inflallibly,” according to Lumen Gentium he is still “owed” that assent of the will of the faithful.

And until Pius IX declared the IC, what of those who opposed it?

I was told once that St. Bernard of Clairvaux (who, although the promoter of the cult of the Virgin in the West, opposed the IC) rejoiced in Heaven over the IC. I asked “In 1153 or 1854?”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This is an interesting comment. The same thought had occasionally crossed my mind I but declined to mention it before. I know very little about Mormons but was thinking about a similarity to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

I had a some experience trying to help someone I loved get out of there. One of the most frustrating features about them was willing acceptance of “New Light” coming out of Bethel, and their apparent ignorance of what was taught very recently before.

The concept always bothered me.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Cut off from the Church. It doesn’t mean damning somebody to Hell.

Bad enough.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Like the Toll Houses?

EXACTLY!

 

[adstrinity]

Bad enough.

Very, VERY true, However, one can always come back to the Church, nobody can ever be un-damned once in Hell.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No, which tells me something. My history (doctorate) was at the University of Chicago.

OK

OK. I’m waiting.

you’re begging the question to it being history.

I know about apostate scandals in the East and West. For instance the fact that the two Auxentius’ led the Arians and made Milan the base of the sect, from whence it was spread to the Germans, and survived in the West (including Italy) until the emperor from the East came and crushed them.

I’ve never heard of it. I’ve skimmed the article in the “Catholic Encyclopedia,” (you’d be hard pressed to find a more ultramontanist/anti-Eastern Orthodox work) on Ambrose, and evidently they never heard of it either, or they are keeping it to themselves.

newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm

Sounds like you are confusing St. Ambrose with the argument between St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen. St. Cyprian was talking about heretics in the West (Rome in fact), and St. Cyprian sought, and received support from the bishops of the East against the Pope of Rome’s opinion.

newadvent.org/cathen/06080b.htm

You said it, I didn’t.

OK

.

The record is where? I missed that.

At least not con.s

?

Have we had any recorded history here for me to reject?

so far we don’t have two histories to compare.

His first chair in the first century and in the Bible remains in Antioch.

Alexandria

No. St. Mark was buried there, where he was martyred, until the the Venetians stole his relics and brought them to Veince, where San Marco’s Basilica was built (a mosaic on the ceiling shows them stealing the relics).

Technically no: St. Peter is buried in Vatican city, and St. Paul in St. Pauls Outside-the-Walls [of Rome].

History knows more about Pope Alexander VI 1492-1503, more than we care to know. He used to poison cardinals to seize their properties. He lost track dining with one cardinal and got himself poisoned. The next pope forbade saying that mass, that you speak of below, for him, saying “It is blasphemous to pray for the damned”.

Actually all the early Popes of Rome were Orthodox.

Don’t have to imagine it. The canon we have is the same as St. Justin Martyr described it in the second century.

His Divine Beatitude Theodore II
Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, the Pentapolis, Ethiopia, All of Egypt and All Africa
Father of Fathers
Shepherd of Shepherds
Archpriest of Archpriests
The Thirteenth Apostle
Judge of the Universe

The 123rd successor to sit on the Throne of St. Mark the Apostle and Evangelist.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Very, VERY true, However, one can always come back to the Church, nobody can ever be un-damned once in Hell.

I tell my sons, God tells us SOME of those who are in Heaven. We call them saints, and pray to them. The rest in Heaven He doesn’t tell us. And He never tells us who is in Hell, so we always pray.

This is a difference between the Orthodox and the Vatican on the last two groups: we always pray for both, and as for un-damning, “the Lord’s hand is not shortened that he cannot save.” He despoiled Hell once. He can again.

 

[Hesychios]

Like the Toll Houses?

You got it.

 

[Hesychios]

This article may be helpful for you. An excerpt:

(bolding mine)

Yes, I read that article before some time back.

Doctrinal development doesn’t really cut it. The theory is something of a rationalization Dr. Henry Newman went through in order to justify his conversion. Ever since then it seems to have been the catch-all excuse people reach for when they are confronted with new theology and cannot explain it away.

Limbo of the Infants is a great example of what I call derivative theology. It isn’t received teaching, it is a logical patch job to cover Augustine’s damnation of infants, which is also not received teaching. So the Limbo of the Infants is derived twice over.

Basically, once the Limbo idea is flushed away, the western church is face to face the stark naked reality that Augustine taught all unbaptized infants are damned to hell. And with millions of innocent children being butchered in abortion mills all over the world, that possibility is just too horrible to imagine these days. So if we get rid of Limbo, we have to get rid of Augustine’s teaching too. But way too much is tied up in Augustine’s teaching, This would not be a development of doctrine, but an un-development, actually reversing what was taught before. The church will not admit that this happens, so everyone is kinda stuck in a theological “limbo”.

One way out is to smooth it all over with some nice language harmonizing eastern theology with western theology, without admitting that anything is changing. Sort of a side step. That is basically what happened in small parts of the CCC of John Paul II.

John Paul II said the church must learn from it’s eastern lung for a reason. It needs to be able to bail out of some bad ideas and this is possibly one way of doing that.

No wonder so many Catholics are having fits over things like Orthodox Saints appearing on Catholic calendars and that sort of thing. And small wonder the Catechism of Trent and the Baltimore Catechism are still each enjoying brisk sales. The conservative Faithful are getting all these mixed signals and don’t know what to make of it all.

 

[Wyatt]

I firmly believe unbaptized infants go to heaven (I am a Latin Rite Catholic). While God imparts grace through the Sacraments of the Church, He is certainly not limited to them. An all merciful God would not throw a baby in the Lake of Fire. I’m certainly glad, as a Catholic, that I am not bound to believe the opinions of theologians of the Church who were never a part of the Magisterium.

While Augustine was certainly a good man and a great Saint of the Church, he was as fallible as the next man, because his speculation on what happens to unbaptized infants was just that, speculation.

 

[wanner47]

Basically, once the Limbo idea is flushed away, the western church is face to face the stark naked reality that Augustine taught all unbaptized infants are damned to hell. And with millions of innocent children being butchered in abortion mills all over the world, that possibility is just too horrible to imagine these days. So if we get rid of Limbo, we have to get rid of Augustine’s teaching too. But way too much is tied up in Augustine’s teaching, This would not be a development of doctrine, but an un-development, actually reversing what was taught before. The church will not admit that this happens, so everyone is kinda stuck in a theological “limbo”.

Why do we need to get rid of Augustine’s teachings if he was wrong about one thing?

Augustine was a great man, but he was still a man – and not ever a Pope.

He may have taught the doctrine of Limbo, but it was never held as official teachings (i.e., infallible). It was a popular theory, but only ever a theory.

By your logic, the Orthodox Catholics must be entirely wrong, because didn’t some of the early Orthodox fathers teach that divorce was ALWAYS wrong, no matter the circumstances?

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Wanner,

He may have taught the doctrine of Limbo, but it was never held as official teachings (i.e., infallible). It was a popular theory, but only ever a theory.

Just to make it clear, Augustine did not teach Limbo, he taught that other position, damnation for unbaptized infants. Western theologians who followed him proposed Limbo as a reaction or modification to his position.

Why do we need to get rid of Augustine’s teachings if he was wrong about one thing?

I specifically stated teaching, in the singular.

This one idea is important however, because, like it or not, aware of it or not, this idea (specifically the concept of Original Sin he advanced) permeates all kind of other notions which follow it.

Take that away and it changes the tone and color of a number of other Latin theological positions.

This is why the church is shifting to (to use Jimmy Akins words quoted above) “…affirming at least the hope…” for these innocent unbaptized unfortunates. That is basically saying nothing, the church has hope for everyone (not just unbaptized infants), but it has been teaching the damnation of infants since the Fifth century at least. That is the default position of the church once Limbo, a newer speculation, is removed from consideration.