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

[Mickey]

Wait I found a list:

Please friend. If you would like to start this little game of naming non-canonical and/schismatic Churches–Catholicism has a very long list. Such tactics are infantile.

 

[RobHom]

Christy74… WOW!!!, I just read the history of the Melkite Catholic Church…here: phoenicia.org/melkites.html and I have to say…that’s one interesting history lesson. I haven’t read the whole article to the bottom…I have read down so far as “Antioch”. I will do more reading later. I learned something today!! So that makes it a good day!!

Peace!!

 

[Mickey]

I just thought the whole idea of “Protestantism/schism is ALL ROME’S FAULT” was just silly.

It is silly to assign blame. What good is it?

It was a protest.
Against what?
Against the selling of indulgences.

Luther started the snowball rolling and it gathered much dung on its way down the hill.

 

[RobHom]

Luther started the snowball rolling and it gathered much dung on its way down the hill.

I wonder…if Luther was alive today, and had a chance to “undo” what he did…would he?

 

[buffgbob]

Please friend. If you would like to start this little game of naming non-canonical and/schismatic Churches–Catholicism has a very long list. Such tactics are infantile.

I didn’t want to honestly. I was avoiding doing so, but rather was asked to produce such a list. I, personally, consider it a moot point. It was probably in poor taste to expound on that list.

My primary points were former anyway. That the Melkite Catholic Church recognizes Rome’s infallibility and authority. I know this for a fact, because I researched Eastern Catholics, because I was thinking about switching rites in order to support the universiality of the Catholic Church. With a bolstered East, I pray we see a reunification between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

 

[Mickey]

I wonder…if Luther was alive today, and had a chance to “undo” what he did…would he?

My opinion is yes.

Here’s the irony: Luther rebelled against the idea of prayers for dead. Now it is only Catholics and Orthodox who can pray for him.

I do.

 

[Hesychios]

The atheistic communist regime murdered countless Orthodox laity and clergy. The blood of the Russian Orthodox martyrs has stained Russian soil for eternity. Churches were destroyed. Some clergy cooperated to save their own lives and were murdered anyway. Others pretended to cooperate and were murdered anyway. Today, the Russian Orthodox Church flourishes.

At the time of the Bolshevik revolution, there were something like 150 dioceses in Russia, big fat ones, each with at least one bishop and many priests.

By the time Hitler invaded Russia, and Stalin decided to recruit the Orthodox church in the rally to push the Nazi’s back, there were only four bishops to be found.

I think perhaps as many as twenty left the country and established the Church Abroad. The rest had gone to eternity by way of assassination or Gulag.

Eternal Memory!

http://www.allsaintsofamerica.org/martyrs/images/nmr.jpg

 

[Mickey]

My primary points were former anyway. That the Melkite Catholic Church recognizes Rome’s infallibility and authority. I know this for a fact

You are correct. Being in communion with Rome means that you accept the doctrines and dogmas of Rome. I know this. I was Ruthenian Catholic at one time. But the Melkites do not back down to Rome. They are not afraid to ordain married men and they are very close to Orthodoxy in thought and praxis. It is a difficult postition for the Melkites. They did not allow themselves to become Latinized, but at the same time cannot renounce the theology of the West. I hate to say this to you Christy, but if you reject everything Rome, then you are in essence rejecting your own Melkite Tradition.

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you?

 

[Mickey]

At the time of the Bolshevik revolution, there were something like 150 dioceses in Russia, big fat ones, each with at least one bishop and many priests.

By the time Hitler invaded Russia, and Stalin decided to recruit the Orthodox church in the rally to push the Nazi’s back, there were only four bishops to be found.

I think perhaps as many as twenty left the country and established the Church Abroad. The rest had gone to eternity by way of assassination or Gulag.

Eternal Memory!

http://www.allsaintsofamerica.org/martyrs/images/nmr.jpg

Eternal Memory!

 

[chris_molter]

Your comparison of the communist regime to the protestant reformation is way off base and rather insulting.

Absolutely no insult was intended. How much Reformation history have you read? There were quite a lot of Catholics being tortured and murdered during that period. I don’t know if comparing body counts is appropriate, but rest assured, many Catholics died for their faith during the Reformation just as many Orthodox did during the Communist regime.

In any case, I pray for those Russian martyrs.

 

[wanner47]

Christy, do you plan to retract your erroneous statements in regard to the doctrine of Limbo?

I didn’t see a reply to my posts (sorry if I missed it!), so I was just wondering.

Given four pages have passed since my last posts (y’all move fast!) I will try to address those later tonight.

 

[Mickey]

How much Reformation history have you read?

Quite a bit.

There were quite a lot of Catholics being tortured and murdered during that period.

The Catholics tortured and murdered many protestants also.

In any case, I pray for those Russian martyrs.

Thank you. God bless you.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I agree. The Western only councils since then where the Assumption and Papal infallibility werre defined are false IMO as they did not come from the whole church East and West. That applies too to the Second Vatican Council.

**The Body Assumption of the Theotokos was dogmatized by Pope Pius XII in 1950. It was NOT a conciliar decree.

Nevertheless, Orthodox believe it as well. References to Our Lady’s Assumption appear in the texts of the post-festal period, especially on 17 August.

If it’s in the liturgical books of the Church, it’s the FAITH of the Church.**

 

[Mickey]

Nevertheless, Orthodox believe it as well. References to Our Lady’s Assumption appear in the texts of the post-festal period, especially on 17 August.

If it’s in the liturgical books of the Church, it’s the FAITH of the Church.
True. I believe the difference here is that the Orthodox believe that Our Lady reposed–Dormition, whereas the West does not necessarily hold to that.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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”!

Of which you are clearly ignorant since you continue to claim the Limbo was a doctrine, although it has been pointed out to you that it never was.

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.

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.
Christy74;4013235:

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.

There is more than one meaning for the word “Canon.” I’m sure Chris was referring to the Canon of the Bible, or maybe a Canon which is Dogmatic.

 

[Mickey]

Of which you are clearly ignorant since you continue to claim the Limbo was a doctrine, although it has been pointed out to you that it never was.

I think that maybe Christy meant that it was taught as if it were doctrine. I know that when I was a child in Roman Catholic grade school–it was taught to me as if it were doctrine.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.)

They can perhaps keep it as theologoumen, but I even doubt that. I’ve never heard anything good about the idea, and if they went about opening preacing it my guess they would get an earful and a demand to justify their opinion.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

We’ve been through this several times. To summarize:

It was Peter’s weakness that occasioned it, as Galatians states (and if Peter was in his own see of Antioch, why did they have to go down to Jerusalem).

James says “I render judgment” krito. Not “I elaborate.”

The decision was in the name of the Apostles (bishops), Elders (dittto/priests) and brethren (Faithful/laity). No mention of a “pope.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

I think that maybe Christy meant that it was taught as if it were doctrine. I know that when I was a child in Roman Catholic grade school–it was taught to me as if it were doctrine.

And then we grew up and learned there was no Santa Claus. Did you really understand the difference between Doctrine and traditions when you were a kid? When you were a little kid you thought your parents knew everything, and then you became a teen-ager, and they knew nothing! Sounds like Christy is still in her teens.

I was never taught the Limbo was Hell. I was taught we didn’t really know, that we trusted in God’s mercy. I imagined Limbo as a Garden of Eden. She has not accepted the correction yet, to my knowledge, but continues to use it to attack the credibility of the CC.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The quote is from a protestant Church historian.

bringyou.to/apologetics/debate19.htm

Ah, yes Bonocore. I still remember the discussion of the “time line” that stated that Theodosius gave the bishop of Constantinople the title EP as retaliation of Gratian giving the Pope of Rome the title of pontiff, a glaring anachronism even by his low standards.

< 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).

Oh, so this is where you do your trolling and got that quote. surprise, surprise.

I’ve already posted the SOURCE, Eusebius.

So, Victor acted with universal authority.

As I pointed out, Victor didn’t call the Councils and they didn’t side with him: the other Churches had a similar (but NOT identical) date. (Btw, the Ecumenical Council adopted Alexandria’s date, not Rome’s).

And, even the Asian bishops who opposed his decision never deny Victor’s authority to issue it.

Only an ultramontanist (or Occidental chauvinist) can read that into the sources. They “REBUKED” him.

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. >

Interesting.

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

Yes. And I remember when Saddam Hussein proclaimed victory after the first Gulf War (actually in Arabic we say the second).

A heretic is one thing,a heresy is another.

I think we have beat this one into the ground. Love the sinner, hate the sin, so excommunicate the heretic.

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.

Ditto.

Vigilius didn’t aid a heresy.

Three Chapters.

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".

I’ve posted the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on Chalceond and Leo.

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.”

And he wouldn’t have said the same to Antioch? (actually, probably not, as Antioch was close, Rome far, and already Cyprus had to secure its independence from the Ecumenical Council. Note: not the Pope of Rome.

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.”

Isn’t this the same one that Pope Gregory called the presecur of the anti-Christ because he was given the title EP, “Universal Patriarch”? And didn’t he keep it (and still have it), despite Gregory’s protest and commands to drop it?

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

Since the Greek Creed is the Lord’s own Words on the matter, the Fathers setting their seal on it (although not in communion with Rome), is, as Truth, as truer than the interpolation of an Arian king off on the periphery of Christdom.

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

And the Son is not thte Father, so HE

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

We do. The topic only comes up when we apply logic to your defense of the filioque.

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

Yes, you do a lot of guessing.
Right? No. Subordination is as incorrect as two sources, the analgam of the filioque.
(ha-ha)

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

Yes, so you say, but don’t defend.

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.

Because He’s not.

Btw, as to the second group, take it up with the Vatican. Is it the Congregation for Eastern Rites?