Why I am drawn to Orthodoxy in one word

[mardukm]

St. Mark of Ephesus refused to sign. Other bishops, upon returning home, repented of their error. It was not simply the laity, but also the clergy that rejected the union.

Where was the council that deposed the bishops who did not “repent?” It was an aberration, brother, plain and simple. Why defend it?

At least the disorder in the Catholic Church that you mention had the decency to hold conciliar actions.

The bishops themselves reconsidered their own actions and repented. And even at the council proceedings itself the Greek representative were far from expressing their assent as that of the Eastern Church. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia is open on this account:

That’s part of the problem. Show us an instance in the history of the Church when an Ecumenical Council convened as such had any of its bishops go around saying “Oh, you know what, we have to wait until we get back home to make sure that our local Church agrees with what you have to say.” What the EO did was an aberration, brother, pure and simple. Why defend it?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

This is your opinion, but it illustrates the disunity of Catholic belief because if you would go to the Baltimore catechism, you will see that when Christ died, his soul went to limbo. Now you say that there is no limbo, which is contrary to the what the Baltimore Catechism says. It also says that limbo is the state or place where infants who die without Baptism enjoy for all eternity a natural happiness.

The Catechism of Pius V also mentions Christ’s soul in limbo–at least in the English translation.

I believe that the Orthodox do not accept the definition of mortal sin nor do they accept the idea of limbo. So there would be unity of view on those issues. So now, unless your offer is fraudulent, and if you are a person of your word, I would like to buy the ocean front property that you have said that you are selling. Please give me the address and other information on the ocean front property in Arizona, that you are offering for sale.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The Catechism of Pius V also mentions Christ’s soul in limbo–at least in the English translation.

Not my version. It states:

Different Abodes Called "Hell"

These abodes are not all of the same nature, for among them is that most loathsome and dark prison in which the souls of the damned are tormented with the unclean spirits in eternal and inextinguishable fire. This place is called gehenna, the bottomless pit, and is hell strictly so-called.

Among them is also the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth. The truth of this doctrine, founded, as holy Councils declare,’ on Scripture, and confirmed by Apostolic tradition, demands exposition from the pastor, all the more diligent and frequent, because we live in times when men endure not sound doctrine.

Lastly, the third kind of abode is that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. To liberate these holy souls, who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell.

Note it doesn’t even mention what is popularly referred to as limbo – the theological possibility of where infants without baptism go.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Where was the council that deposed the bishops who did not “repent?” It was an aberration, brother, plain and simple. Why defend it?

Also, did any of those Bishops ‘repent’ before being presented in front of a lynch mob?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JMJ_coder

Also, the Baltimore Catechism doesn’t declare that limbo for those without Baptism is real. It only posits the possibility – which is all the limbo of infants ever was, a theological possibility. It states:

It does not exist now, or, if it does, is only for little children who have never committed actual sin and who have died without Baptism.

I am truly blessed by your presence here. Your appeal to the sources is much more satisfying and honest than the interpretative malarchy that comes from non-Catholic polemicists or Catholic dissidents.

Abundant Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Also, did any of those Bishops ‘repent’ before being presented in front of a lynch mob?

Great point!

Ecclesiology is one of the main sticking points I have with the EO. If at some point they would admit that what occurred after Florence was an abberation, IMHO it would go a long way to heal the breach. But on the contrary, the EO seem to praise what occurred after Florence - and not just the justifiable concern of preserving their Tradition (though Mark of Ephesus really did misrepresent the Council to the Eastern Christians), but also the UNjustifiable MANNER in which it was done, i.e., mob rule. After all, our Eastern Catholic brethren have an ecclesiological perspective similar to the EO, but in the Catholic Church, we see that we can live together in unity even with these different perspectives.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Where was the council that deposed the bishops who did not “repent?” It was an aberration, brother, plain and simple. Why defend it?

At least the disorder in the Catholic Church that you mention had the decency to hold conciliar actions.

The other three Patriarchs met in Jerusalem, wrote against the Council of Florence, and even called upon conciliar action.

That’s part of the problem. Show us an instance in the history of the Church when an Ecumenical Council convened as such had any of its bishops go around saying “Oh, you know what, we have to wait until we get back home to make sure that our local Church agrees with what you have to say.” What the EO did was an aberration, brother, pure and simple. Why defend it?

The Ecumenical Councils are anything but regular.

Most of the previous Councils concerned recent, internal controversies. Florence dealt with a separation of several centuries in which time much theological development had occurred and had to be taken into account.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Not my version. It states:Different Abodes Called "Hell"

These abodes are not all of the same nature, for among them is that most loathsome and dark prison in which the souls of the damned are tormented with the unclean spirits in eternal and inextinguishable fire. This place is called gehenna, the bottomless pit, and is hell strictly so-called.

Among them is also the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth. The truth of this doctrine, founded, as holy Councils declare,’ on Scripture, and confirmed by Apostolic tradition, demands exposition from the pastor, all the more diligent and frequent, because we live in times when men endure not sound doctrine.

Lastly, the third kind of abode is that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. To liberate these holy souls, who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell.
Note it doesn’t even mention what is popularly referred to as limbo – the theological possibility of where infants without baptism go.

Article IV of the Creed, under the "Second Part of This Article: ‘Dead and Buried’ "

“His Divinity continued always united both to his body in the sepulchre, and to his soul in Limbo.”

source: archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft

Does anybody have the original Latin of this part? It here seems to be used synonymously with Abraham’s Bosom–i.e. The limbo of the Fathers. It would seem the question is not whether this limbo ever existed, but whether it continued to exist after the Resurrection.

 

[mardukm]

The other three Patriarchs met in Jerusalem, wrote against the Council of Florence, and even called upon conciliar action.

Ex post facto doesn’t count by any means. That principle is just ripe for abuse. Anyone can do anything they want contrary to Tradition and then try to justify it after the fact by the holding of a council. Even THAT’s an aberration. That’s just not the way the Church works or has ever worked.

The Ecumenical Councils are anything but regular

Can’t argue with you there.

Still**…**

Most of the previous Councils concerned recent, internal controversies. Florence dealt with a separation of several centuries in which time much theological development had occurred and had to be taken into account.

I can’t say that’s a valid excuse. There was obviously a change in the ecclesiology of the EO between the 11th and 15th centuries that had no basis in the Tradition of the Church of the first millenium. What Ecumenical Council divested head bishops of the authority/jurisdiction granted to them by Ecumenical Councils in the first millenium?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Ex post facto doesn’t count by any means. That principle is just ripe for abuse. Anyone can do anything they want contrary to Tradition and then try to justify it after the fact by the holding of a council. Even THAT’s an aberration. That’s just not the way the Church works or has ever worked.

Huh?

Of what Tradition do you speak?

Can’t argue with you there.

Still**…**

I can’t say that’s a valid excuse. There was obviously a change in the ecclesiology of the EO between the 11th and 15th centuries that had no basis in the Tradition of the Church of the first millenium. What Ecumenical Council divested head bishops of the authority/jurisdiction granted to them by Ecumenical Councils in the first millenium?

Which Ecumenical Council acknowledged or made the Pope of Rome supreme bishop of the Church, and gave him unhindered, universal jurisdiction?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Huh?

Of what Tradition do you speak?

The tried and true Tradition that bishops cannot be deposed without a trial in Synod. If you have doubts, read up on the canons of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Which Ecumenical Council acknowledged or made the Pope of Rome supreme bishop of the Church, and gave him unhindered, universal jurisdiction?

1. The Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils validated the decisions of the Council of Sardica that recognized the Pope’s appellate jurisdiction in the entire Church.
2. The Traditional practice and belief of the Church that the bishop of Rome was the standard of orthodoxy with whom agreement and whose agreement was necessary. I’m sure someone else with more time will give you the multitude of quotes from Fathers East and West proving the truth of that statement.

Now, care to answer my original question? What Ecumenical Council divested head bishops of the authority and jurisdiction that was granted to them by the Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium. Or show us an instance in the Tradition of the Church in the first millenium that demonstrates head bishops could be divested of their authority and jurisdiction by mob rule. Or the current EO belief that your head bishops only have real jurisdiction in their own local see and not in the entire patriarchal see as asserted by Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Can you please separate your quotes from the original source with the appropriate markings? It is rather difficult and cumbersome to respond to you when you make ALL your answers WITHIN the quotation markings. When you do that, one has to cut and paste your response all the time.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mardukm:

The tried and true Tradition that bishops cannot be deposed without a trial in Synod. If you have doubts, read up on the canons of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Which deposition do you oppose?

1. The Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils validated the decisions of the Council of Sardica that recognized the Pope’s appellate jurisdiction in the entire Church.

You should have underlined and emboldened appellate.

1. The Traditional practice and belief of the Church that the bishop of Rome was the standard of orthodoxy with whom agreement and whose agreement was necessary. I’m sure someone else with more time will give you the multitude of quotes from Fathers East and West proving the truth of that statement.

Now, care to answer my original question? What Ecumenical Council divested head bishops of the authority and jurisdiction that was granted to them by the Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium. Or show us an instance in the Tradition of the Church in the first millenium that demonstrates head bishops could be divested of their authority and jurisdiction by mob rule. Or the current EO belief that your head bishops only have real jurisdiction in their own local see and not in the entire patriarchal see as asserted by Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium.

Where are you getting the notion that the Eastern Orthodox today do not accept the authority and jurisdiction of the Patriarchs as delineated by the Ecumenical Councils? I don’t see this rejection.

As there are no Ecumenical Councils after the Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium, I would have to say none.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Can you please separate your quotes from the original source with the appropriate markings? It is rather difficult and cumbersome to respond to you when you make ALL your answers WITHIN the quotation markings. When you do that, one has to cut and paste your response all the time.

Sure

 

[mardukm]

Which deposition do you oppose?

When the Patriarch and other bishops were run out of their office by the frenzied mobs after the Council of Florence.

You should have underlined and emboldened appellate.

Many Catholics (especially Latins) won’t even mention the word “appellate.” In any case, it always has been appellate. There’s nothing in Vatican 1 or 2 to say otherwise, except your mention of the word “unhindered.” The canonical use of that word simply means that the Pope cannot be forced to use or not use his prerogatives - i.e., it is an exercise of free will. Do a search on the use of the word “unhindered” in the text of the canons of the Catholic Church (Eastern or Latin - here’s a link to the Eastern Code: intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM)). It does not mean laissez-faire freedom to do as one pleases, which is the anti-Catholic polemic misunderstanding - it simply means the use of free-will. He is always restricted by Divine law and by the constitution of the Church (and since you were once Catholic, I’m sure you know that the canons state that if you are unsure of what a canon intends, you must use either other canons or custom to settle the issue - not impose your own understanding on them).

So why do the EO oppose the Traditional universal prerogatives of the bishop of Rome in contradiction to the Ecumenical Councils?

Where are you getting the notion that the Eastern Orthodox today do not accept the authority and jurisdiction of the Patriarchs as delineated by the Ecumenical Councils? I don’t see this rejection.
Every EO who has come here and debated the matter has explicitly stated that a Patriarch is ONLY an administrative head (NOT an administrative AND spiritual head, as it is within Catholicism and Oriental Orthodoxy). A Patriarch in the EO Church is administrative AND spiritual head ONLY of his own LOCAL diocese as bishop. His JURISDICTION PROPER extends ONLY to his own LOCAL diocese as bishop of that diocese. That is not the ecclesiology given to us by the Ecumenical Councils. The Ecumenical Councils assert that Patriarchs (and other head bishops) have actual JURISDICTION PROPER in their ENTIRE patriarchal or metropolitan see.

As there are no Ecumenical Councils after the Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium, I would have to say none.

So what authority does the EO have to change the ecclesiological teaching of the Ecumenical Councils. What authority does the EO have to hold up as some sort of shining standard the ecclesiological aberration that occurred after the Council of Florence?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

Also, the Baltimore Catechism doesn’t declare that limbo for those without Baptism is real. .

The Baltimore catechism states the following as one definition of limbo: " the state or place where infants who die without baptism enjoy for all eternity a natural happiness."
Pope Pius VI’s Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei denounced the rejection of Limbo as “false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools.”
Father Joseph Le Blanc, in his 1947 article “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?”, summarized two central points taught in this Papal constitution:

“(1) There exists a Children’s Limbo, where the souls of children dying with original sin are detained; (2) the doctrine of Limbo as commonly accepted by the faithful, and taught by the schoolmen, is not a Pelagian fable, but an orthodox teaching.”
See: “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?”, Father Joseph Le Blanc, C.J.M., American Ecclesiastical Review, September 1947, p. 167.
So, on the one hand we have people who say “no limbo”. On the other hand, we have the official pronouncement of Pope Pius VI, that there is a limbo.
In other words, there is disunity here in Catholic belief on whether or not there is a limbo.
As we have seen, there is also disunity on the question of whether or not the filioque should be recited in the creed, unlike in Orthodoxy where there is a universal stand with no dissent, that the filioques should not be recited in the creed.
To get back to the original question, in one word, the disunity of Catholic beleif on a number of subjects, may be why some Catholics are drawn to Orthodoxy.

 

[mardukm]

(1) There exists a Children’s Limbo, where the souls of children dying with original sin are detained; (2) the doctrine of Limbo as commonly accepted by the faithful, and taught by the schoolmen, is not a Pelagian fable, but an orthodox teaching.”
See: “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?”, Father Joseph Le Blanc, C.J.M., American Ecclesiastical Review, September 1947, p. 167.
So, on the one hand we have people who say “no limbo”. On the other hand, we have the official pronouncement of Pope Pius VI, that there is a limbo.
In other words, there is disunity here in Catholic belief on whether or not there is a limbo.
As we have seen, there is also disunity on the question of whether or not the filioque should be recited in the creed, unlike in Orthodoxy where there is a universal stand with no dissent, that the filioques should not be recited in the creed.
To get back to the original question, in one word, the disunity of Catholic beleif on a number of subjects, may be why some Catholics are drawn to Orthodoxy.

In other words, because the Catholic Church DOES NOT dogmatize everthing, you expect us to believe that there are those who would prefer to go to a Church that complains that the Catholic Church SHOULD NOT dogmatize everything, and has MORE UNdogmatized matter than the Catholic Church does.

Are there toll houses or not?
Is it transubstantiation or consubstantiation?
Should we have pews or not?
Should we use the Julian or Gregorian calendar?
Should we rebaptize Catholics or not?
Are non-Orthodox saved or not?
Should we re-ordain priests or not?
Can I divorce and remarry (the criteria is different among different jurisdictions)?
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Nice try. No cigar.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

In other words, because the Catholic Church DOES NOT dogmatize everthing, you expect us to believe that there are those who would prefer to go to a Church that complains that the Catholic Church SHOULD NOT dogmatize everything, and has MORE UNdogmatized matter than the Catholic Church does.

But you do not deny that there is disunity in Catholic belief? At least on the various points that I have mentioned, I don’t see any agreement among all Catholics. The question of what is and what is not a mortal sin is a very serious one, is it not. And you do admit that there are some Catholics who say that it was a mortal sin to vote for the Democrat Obama, whereas there is a Catholic priest, Father Greeley, who has said that it would be a mortal sin to vote for a Republican? And there are Catholic clergy who say that it would not be a sin to vote either way, if you do so in good conscience. In the Orthodox Church, it is my understanding, that there is not really a mortal sin, but it is a consideration of your whole life which is important, so could that be a point which draws a Catholic to Orthodoxy? And a Catholic may be drawn to Orthodoxy, because he may be confused by the conflicting teachings that he sees in Catholicism.
What about the teaching of Pope Pius VI on limbo? Should
Catholics disregard that teaching or not? What about the book of Father LeBlanc?

 

[Aramis]

Considering Benedict XVI rejects limbo… I’ll take Dogmatically rejected for 1000, Alex.

 

[mardukm]

But you do not deny that there is disunity in Catholic belief? At least on the various points that I have mentioned, I don’t see any agreement among all Catholics. The question of what is and what is not a mortal sin is a very serious one, is it not. And you do admit that there are some Catholics who say that it was a mortal sin to vote for the Democrat Obama, whereas there is a Catholic priest, Father Greeley, who has said that it would be a mortal sin to vote for a Republican? And there are Catholic clergy who say that it would not be a sin to vote either way, if you do so in good conscience. In the Orthodox Church, it is my understanding, that there is not really a mortal sin, but it is a consideration of your whole life which is important, so could that be a point which draws a Catholic to Orthodoxy? And a Catholic may be drawn to Orthodoxy, because he may be confused by the conflicting teachings that he sees in Catholicism.
What about the teaching of Pope Pius VI on limbo? Should
Catholics disregard that teaching or not? What about the book of Father LeBlanc?

In the Catholic Church, if there is a doubt among the laity, they look to the Magisterium. Despite what this or that person says is or is not a mortal sin - what constitutes a mortal sin is a solid definition in the Catholic Church. And in Catholicism, there is the accepted mitigation of invincible ignorance. How one votes in an election is not a matter defined by the Church, so one can let one’s conscience guide one’s decision. Regarding Limbo, look to the Magisterium. If there is no united teaching on it, then that means it is not defined and people are free to believe as their conscience dictates. Pretty easy formula to follow.

Now let me ask you. There are some EO who say contraception is a sin and permitted under economy; and there are those who say it is not and ridicule the Catholic Church for making people “feel guilty.” If I go to the Russian Orthodox, they will say I can divorce and remarry in certain circumstances that another EO jurisdiction will say is not acceptable. Is not sin an important matter in the EO Church? Why aren’t these issues resolved for sure? Why should I belong to a Church who cannot even resolve these issues? I’ve met EO who say certain evil men are bound for hell; then there are those who say there is still a chance for them to get to heaven even after they die. Who should I listen to since their hierarchy has not pronounced definitively on the matter? Does this mean I can lead an evil life, die, and still go to heaven if enough prayers are said for me? Why should I belong to a Church who can’t even answer that for me? Show me an official teaching on these serious matters.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I believe we should stop this avenue of discussion. It is not fruitful. In truth, I don’t like airing another jurisdiction’s “dirty laundry.” That’s their own business. I won’t start debating about it, but I won’t sit idly by and let arguments of hypocrisy against the Catholic Church run rampant either.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

How one votes in an election is not a matter defined by the Church, so one can let one’s conscience guide one’s decision.

However, there is a whole thread here on CAF as to why it would be a mortal sin to vote for Obama. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=269841
So there is serious disagreement on what is and what is not a mortal sin in Catholicism; for example, you, and many others, say that voting is a matter of conscience. This is a pretty serious matter and it is not inconceivable that such serious disagreements may draw a Catholic to Orthodoxy.