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

[Isa_Almisry]

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

Who said it was one thing?

And as my patron St. John of Damascus says “a small thing is not a small thing if it leads to something great.”

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

Actually I think he had more influence in the West than any pope. Which should tell us something about Vatican I.

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.

As Hesychiox points out, you can’t pull a thread and be surprised when the sweater falls apart. Limbo might be low level theology, but his other ideas have been formative and profound in the West (including the Protestants).

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?

SOME Fathers don’t make dogma.

Some Fathers spoke of circumstances which warrented it.

NONE thought of or supported “annullment.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello Wanner, 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. 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 a bad thing?

 

[chris_molter]

This is a bad thing?

So reverse Latinization (Easternization?) would be a good idea, in your opinion, were we to reunite?

And you wonder why so many Catholics get defensive and snarky towards your co-religionists?

I’m sorry, but that approach is just as wrong-headed as if I were to suggest that all Eastern theology and spirituality should be tossed out and everyone adopt only those theological approaches developed in the West.

Wow. Just wow.

(or am I misreading you? If so and I hope so, then mea culpa!)

 

[Hesychios]

So reverse Latinization (Easternization?) would be a good idea, in your opinion, were we to reunite?

Reversing the “flow” of Latin innovation does not an easternized church make. It returns the Latin churches to their roots.

…Wow. Just wow.

(or am I misreading you? If so and I hope so, then mea culpa!)

I think you are misreading him, because you are looking at it as a zero-sum game.

No one wants you and your church to “easternize”, that does not make any sense at all. Just clean it up so we can share communion again!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So reverse Latinization (Easternization?) would be a good idea, in your opinion, were we to reunite?

And you wonder why so many Catholics get defensive and snarky towards your co-religionists?

I’m sorry, but that approach is just as wrong-headed as if I were to suggest that all Eastern theology and spirituality should be tossed out and everyone adopt only those theological approaches developed in the West.

Wow. Just wow.

(or am I misreading you? If so and I hope so, then mea culpa!)

I’m a big supporter of the Western Rite Orthodox, so I don’t know how you read that.

Adoration, for instance, is not my cup of tea, but I prostrate if I happen into a Vatican church doing it.

All Orthodox are quite fond of St. Cyprian. I’m quite fond of St. Ambrose, St. Iranaeus (though, since he came from the East I don’t know if he counts), Pope St. Gregory, Pope St. Leo, and even Augustine. I think Augustine needs to be tempoed though. Jerome is the one I have real issues with

 

[theistgal]

You got it.

Well … Limbo is to Roman Catholics what Toll Houses are to Eastern Orthodox. You’re allowed to believe it, but not required to believe it.

And that’s always been the case (no matter what some ruler-totin’ nun might have told her class in 1958 ).

In fact - you’re still allowed to believe in Limbo, even though the current Pope (and majority of theologians) doesn’t. Why? Because the Church has never pronounced any judgment on its existence, one way or the other. It may exist, and it may not - just like the Toll Houses may exist, or may not.

We simply don’t know for sure. And frankly, I’d be very skeptical about anyone who says they do know for sure. Unless they can provide photos.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well … Limbo is to Roman Catholics what Toll Houses are to Eastern Orthodox. You’re allowed to believe it, but not required to believe it.

And that’s always been the case (no matter what some ruler-totin’ nun might have told her class in 1958 ).

In fact - you’re still allowed to believe in Limbo, even though the current Pope (and majority of theologians) doesn’t. Why? Because the Church has never pronounced any judgment on its existence, one way or the other. It may exist, and it may not - just like the Toll Houses may exist, or may not.

We simply don’t know for sure. And frankly, I’d be very skeptical about anyone who says they do know for sure. Unless they can provide photos.

The toll houses have been condemned by a number of councils I believe (including one by the Russian Church Abroad).

 

[chris_molter]

I’m a big supporter of the Western Rite Orthodox, so I don’t know how you read that.

Adoration, for instance, is not my cup of tea, but I prostrate if I happen into a Vatican church doing it.

All Orthodox are quite fond of St. Cyprian. I’m quite fond of St. Ambrose, St. Iranaeus (though, since he came from the East I don’t know if he counts), Pope St. Gregory, Pope St. Leo, and even Augustine. I think Augustine needs to be tempoed though. Jerome is the one I have real issues with

St Irenaeus is one of those wonderful “bridge” Saints. He speaks really well to both East and West. Speaking of which, I can’t tell you how happy I am that there’s been a resurgence of interest in the Eastern Saints and Fathers within Catholicism lately. I think it will bear good fruit in the long term. (How could it not, dare I ask?) Also seeing you guys read some Western theologians, Saints, and Fathers with a less hostile (though critical in the best sense of the word) approach is really satisfying.

I’m glad I was misreading you.

Originally Posted by Hesychios
Reversing the “flow” of Latin innovation does not an easternized church make. It returns the Latin churches to their roots.
I think you are misreading him, because you are looking at it as a zero-sum game.

No one wants you and your church to “easternize”, that does not make any sense at all. Just clean it up so we can share communion again!

I know it’s how you see development of doctrine, but calling it innovation doesn’t necessarily make it so. Development occurs in both our communions, I just think Rome’s a little more honest about it and tries to quantify it (I know… I know… us Latins and our obsession with quantifying everything…).

I really DON’T see reunion as zero-sum. I don’t think Pope Benedict does either, from what I’ve seen and read of his approach to ecumenism with the East and I tend to follow his lead on things like that .

Clean it up, huh? I suppose I’d phrase it differently, but yeah. I think if we can both find a way of expressing our theologies that don’t mutually anathematize one another, then we’re on the right track.

 

[adstrinity]

What is a Toll House? I keep reading, I think, “cookie.”

 

[Hesychios]

Well … Limbo is to Roman Catholics what Toll Houses are to Eastern Orthodox. You’re allowed to believe it, but not required to believe it.

I don’t think that is an apt comparison.

Orthodox don’t gleefully think, hey! that’s a new twist! Very Interesting! What we want is for those people to stop teaching that mythology as if it were Apostolic Truth.

We don’t say “I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death your right to say it”. That’s nonsense as far as Orthodox theology is concerned. Bizarre new speculations and folk dreams and myths are just bad for the faith and should be discouraged.

And we don’t say “Hey, I’m a Molinist, any other Molinists in here?”
“No I’m a Thomist”
“Wow, cool.”

We don’t have schools of thought like that. Sometimes western Christians want to regard eastern Christianity as just another school of theological thought to add to the kitbag. Something cool to study. As if they all had equal relevance.

 

[buffgbob]

The toll houses have been condemned by a number of councils I believe (including one by the Russian Church Abroad).

But you don’t have to see those latter councils as infallible do you? (Especially ones formed by Churches which are not your own.)

 

[Hesychios]

What is a Toll House? I keep reading, I think, “cookie.”

Yep, It’s a cookie! [sign] :yup: Yumm! [/sign]

 

[adstrinity]

Yep, It’s a cookie! [sign] :yup: Yumm! [/sign]

So the Eastern Churches theorize in the existance of but don’t ~have~ to believe in cookies?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

But you don’t have to see those latter councils as infallible do you? (Especially ones formed by Churches which are not your own.)

Any Church in communion with us is “our own,” so if it became an issue, the Church woud deal with it.

No, they’re not infallible, but we have had a lot of Pan-Orthodox Synods (though not on this specific) issue which are not infallible, but are accepted by all Orthodox

 

[RobHom]

I am finding…unless I am confused that some of us here are not really sure what some things are. Or is it that somethings are not what they are and we really aren’t sure or are we?

Ok, now that I have that out of my system… here’s a definition of “Limbo” and some of the Biblical backup for it. But what is necessary to understand is that it was never “dogma”.

Limbo: newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Limbo

What I read there, was pretty accurate according to what I was taught as a child…about 50 years ago. And its from a “secular” source.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So the Eastern Churches theorize in the existance of but don’t ~have~ to believe in cookies?

Stick your hand too much in the cookie jar, and the sitt/yaya/babushka will slap your hand before the bishop get to you.

 

[buffgbob]

Any Church in communion with us is “our own,” so if it became an issue, the Church woud deal with it.

No, they’re not infallible, but we have had a lot of Pan-Orthodox Synods (though not on this specific) issue which are not infallible, but are accepted by all Orthodox

I guess what I’m saying is that you are still free to believe in Toll-Houses if you so choose? Would this be considered a heretical idea now that your councils have deemed it incorrect (although they admit they could be wrong?)

Just curious how Orthodox view their own teachings, both strictly (letter of the law) and practically (general dicipline towards it.)

 

[anthony022071]

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

Peter was the one who first said that the gentiles should not be burdened with the requirements of the Jewish law. Then the debate ceased. James just elaborated upon what Peter had said.
It was James’ own party that had been causing the trouble in Antioch.

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

The quote is from a protestant Church historian.

bringyou.to/apologetics/debate19.htm
< Yet, since Mr. Engwer so loves modern scholars, perhaps an account from the famous Protestant Church historian, J.N.D. Kelly, will do:

“At his [Victor’s] instigation, synods were held both at Rome and at other centers, from Gaul to Mesopotamia, and majority opinion sided with him. The churches of Asia Minor, however, refused to abandon the age-old Quartodeciman custom of observing Eastern 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, 12).

So, Victor acted with universal authority. And, even the Asian bishops who opposed his decision never deny Victor’s authority to issue it. In this, Engwer quoted Polycrates of Ephesus who, in response to Victor, echoes the words of the Apostles in Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than man.” These words were spoken to the High Priest Caiaphas: the one in authority at the time (Matt 23:1-3). Thus, what Polycrates was saying is that the Liturgical Tradition of the Apostle John was even greater than the Pope’s legitimate authority. …Which it was. Thus Victor withdrew the excommunication. >

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 point is that the “rebuke” of Victor does not detract from the fact that Victor had ecclesiastical authority over the bishops.

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

A heretic is one thing,a heresy is another.

No. What’s anathema mean?

Exclusion from fellowship of the Church.
The Church can’t put a person out of God’s mercy,only out of the Church. The Church can also forgive a heretic who repents and bring him back into communion.

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

Vigilius didn’t aid a heresy.

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 Orthodox Church has a difference with its Catholic ancestry.

Council of Chalcedon to Leo. Ep. xcviii:

“For you showed us benevolence in presiding over us in the persons of those who held your place *, as the head over the members”.

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (c. AD 649), writing to Pope Theodore:

“O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed.”

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. A.D. 715):
“The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren.”

“Up to now grief, sorrow, and many tears have been our portion. For we cannot laugh at the fall of our neighbours, nor exult with joy at their unbridled madness, nor have we been elated that we might fall all the more grievously because of this thing; not thus, O venerable and sacred head, have we been taught, we who hold Christ, the Lord of the universe, to be both benign and man-loving in the highest degree; for he exhorts us to be imitators of him in his priesthood so far as is possible, as becomes the good, and to obtain the pattern of his pastoral and conciliatory government.”

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

It is just as true as what the Greek creed says.

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

No,the Son is not the Father,so he doesn’t beget himself.

What,you can’t accept the difference of persons at the same time as the doctrine of consustantiality?

I guess I was right about how Orthodox apologists undermine the “one in being” belief when they argue against the filioque.
(tee-hee)

Then He must share in the begetting of the Son.

No,different persons. There’s a hierarchy in God,without subordination.

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

That’s what I was saying. But the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics speak of the ultimate cause of the Spirit as if the Son was not one in being or participant with it.*

 

[jediliz]

last time I checked, Peter was the first leader of the Christian church, personally chosen by Christ Himself. The Orthodox split was in 1000 something, over 900 years later. The Catholic Church has always been…since that moment when Peter was chosen to lead.

Can you explain more about the “Heresies” you speak of?

 

[anthony022071]

Edit:

This quote is from the letter of the Third Council of Constantinople to Pope Agatho:

“Up to now grief, sorrow, and many tears have been our portion. For we cannot laugh at the fall of our neighbours, nor exult with joy at their unbridled madness, nor have we been elated that we might fall all the more grievously because of this thing; not thus, O venerable and sacred head, have we been taught, we who hold Christ, the Lord of the universe, to be both benign and man-loving in the highest degree; for he exhorts us to be imitators of him in his priesthood so far as is possible, as becomes the good, and to obtain the pattern of his pastoral and conciliatory government.”