Will Orthodox and Catholics Reconcile?

[josie_L]

Josie, that website by David McDonald you gave us, is awesome! A treasure trove of information. (The Banana Republican site is awesome, too!)

Thanks for your well researched posts, I’m learning every day from them.

There are other (awesome) sites I can recommend if you’re interested:

isidore-of-seville.com/orthodoxy_and_catholicism/5.html

pblosser.blogspot.com/

credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/

catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/

socrates58.blogspot.com/

p.s. I am delighted to know that you’re making good use of the articles/sites I’ve posted, it makes me feel like I’m doing my little part to help (by the way I’ve also learned a lot from you too).

God bless.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

My brother it seems to me that it is the Roman Catholic Church that has changed the teaching on divorce and remarriage. The Canons of St Basil and the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council testify to that fact.

Canon 8

Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them

No, Bro, these canons affirm the constant teaching of the Catholic Church since her beginning, and – lamentably – that the Orthodox have gone off the track.

Addressing the Council of Nicea, Canon 8 (I’ll address the St. Basil canon separately):

This canon concerns the Novatians, who gave themselves the name of Cathari (Puritans), because their communion alone was, in their eyes, the pure bride of Christ, while the Catholic Church had [in their view] been contaminated by the readmission of the lapsi (i.e., those who had denied the Faith in persecution). A portion of the Novatians – those of Phrygia – followed the Montanists in declaring that any one of the faithful who married again after the death of his spouse committed adultery.

The requirement that the Novations (Cathari) who wished to return to the Church had to “communicate with persons who have been twice married” referred to those Catholics whose spouses had died and had remarried. The Church teaches that the death of a spouse leaves the other spouse free to marry again.

Reference: A History of the Christian Councils from the Original Documents to the Close of the Council of Nicea, A.D. 325 by Charles Joseph Hefele, D.D., Bishop of Rottenberg, translated from the German by William R. Clark, M.A, published by T & T. Clark, Edinburgh, and in the United States by C Scribner and Co., 1871, pp.409-411 ( purchased on the rare book market).

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

 

[josie_L]

The Beliefs on Mary were commonly acknowledged in writings by 250 AD. And accepted equally by both EAST & WEST. And, when heretics began distorting the FACTS … the Church formalized the teachings in written form.

He is refering to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary (which were defined in the middle of the 19th century and the middle of the 20th respectively).

God bless.

 

[brb3]

He is refering to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary (which were defined in the middle of the 19th century and the middle of the 20th respectively).

So was I …

You are not suggesting the Church dreamed up our Dogmatic ideas on OC and A.M. in recent centuries ?

 

[JDZwiers19]

What’s your documentation for the “full intention of adopting the Latin traditions” part?

The Crusaders installed Alexios IV on the throne (together with his blinded father Isaac) without too much trouble. Nor did they sack the city at that point. Alexios wasn’t able to pay the Crusaders, and popular opinion in Constantinople turned against him. The Crusaders only sacked the city after the Byzantines had defaulted on their payment and started attacking the Crusaders. So the Crusaders weren’t actually as bad as you have made them out to be!

Alexios had promised to submit Constantinople to Rome, but I am unaware of any evidence that the people of Constantinople knew this when they accepted him.

Edwin

After Alexius was unable to pay the crusaders they attacked city. Alexius fled once the crusaders breeched the outer wall and took part of the city. The remaining garrison (which greatly outnumbered the crusaders) along with most of the population decided to surrender rather than fight. They fully knew the consequences which would include adopting the Latin rite and recognising a Latin as king. What they didn’t expect was the savagery that ensued. Thomas F. Madden’s ‘The New Concise History Of The Crusades’ is my source. Very good book.

 

[JDZwiers19]

I didn’t make mention of any pope. I didn’t even mention any anti–pope. And I definitely didn’t mention any of the fighting that went on.

You said Orthodox Christians are fallible. The Pope is infallible therefore he is not orthodox. I thought that was a pun on your part because of your winky face.

 

[josie_L]

So was I …

You are not suggesting the Church dreamed up our Dogmatic ideas on OC and A.M. in recent centuries ?

No, not at all, but I think he does, hence my post to you.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

But isn’t there conflicts in the Catholic churches too? Tell me the overarching principle that unites the Catholics?

I read the post that answered your question with the comment that Christ unites. Well, all Christians worship Jesus Christ, but there are thousands of Protestant denominations that conflict and compete with the Catholic Church and with one another. The Protestant Bible has 66 books; the Catholic Bible (the original Bible) has 73.

Less competitive but still separate are the Orthodox Churches, divided along national and ethnic lines. And – the Greeks have one Bible, the Russians another, and the Ethiopian Orthodox still another. The Oriental Orthodox are not admitted to Communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church (and, I think, vice versa). Their beliefs are similar, but different. The OO’s only accept the first three Ecumenical Councils; the EO’s accept seven (of 21). I don’t think the Russian Orthodox invite other Orthodox to their Communion, but I’m not sure how that works among the several Eastern Orthodox groups. And so it goes. The Body of Christ is severely wounded.

The center of unity among all 22 Rites of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is St. Peter – and his successors – of whom there have been 265, including Benedict XVI.

The Orthodox added to the Catholic Bible, the Protestants subtracted from it. If you’re interested in this subject, go to this Methodist website: Which Bible, Whose Canon?
gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm

Pray for the unity of Christendom.

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[josephdaniel29]

Less competitive but still separate are the Orthodox Churches, divided along national and ethnic lines. And – the Greeks have one Bible, the Russians another, and the Ethiopian Orthodox still another. The Oriental Orthodox are not admitted to Communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church (and, I think, vice versa). Their beliefs are similar, but different. The OO’s only accept the first three Ecumenical Councils; the EO’s accept seven (of 21). I don’t think the Russian Orthodox invite other Orthodox to their Communion, but I’m not sure how that works among the several Eastern Orthodox groups. And so it goes. The Body of Christ is severely wounded.

Where in the world did you get this info from? My brother I recommend a basic primer in Orthodoxy before you make any more statements about it on a public forum.

In Christ
Joe

 

[brb3]

So long as he adheres to the Orthodox Faith

And, so long as the Orthodox Faith ADHERES to their consession in early 500’s signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople [John the Scholastic] acknowledging the following:

CHRIST BUILT HIS CHURCH ON ST. PETER, AND SO IN THE APOSTOLIC SEE THE CATHOLIC FAITH HAS ALWAYS BEEN KEPT WITHOUT STAIN. THERE IS ONE COMMUNIION DEFINED BY THE ROMAN SEE, AND IN THAT I HOPE TO BE, FOLLOWING THE APOSTOLIC SEE IN EVERYTHING AND AFFIRMING EVERYTHING DECIDED THEREBY.

 

[Nine_Two]

…in matters of teaching the correct faith and morals.

That limitation is important, as far as the position of the Catholic Church.

Do indulgences fall under this category?

Prior to the reformation they were being sold by representatives of the church to people on the understanding they would get their dead relatives out of purgatory immediately. They paid for the largest church in the world. Are you saying it wasn’t wrong on this teaching? Why did it reverse itself when it came under criticism for this teaching?

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes, it was a GREAT idea. It added clarity and correctness to the Creed … which was being perverted by heretics at that point in history.

Was it wrong for us to begin using the word TRINITY, to describe the Father/Son/H.S. ?

If it added clarity why, as I said, do so many find it confusing?

 

[Nine_Two]

The Beliefs on Mary were commonly acknowledged in writings by 250 AD. And accepted equally by both EAST & WEST. And, when heretics began distorting the FACTS … the Church formalized the teachings in written form.

Which heretics distorted them? You mean the Protestants? Then why weren’t they made doctrine at Trent, rather than at Vatican? Vatican was not called in opposition to heresy, as Trent was.

 

[Nine_Two]

No, not at all, but I think he does, hence my post to you.

I don’t quite understand why Catholics have such difficulty with the distinction between believing something, and believing something as doctrine.

 

[Nine_Two]

And, so long as the Orthodox Faith ADHERES to their consession in early 500’s signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople [John the Scholastic] acknowledging the following:

CHRIST BUILT HIS CHURCH ON ST. PETER, AND SO IN THE APOSTOLIC SEE THE CATHOLIC FAITH HAS ALWAYS BEEN KEPT WITHOUT STAIN. THERE IS ONE COMMUNIION DEFINED BY THE ROMAN SEE, AND IN THAT I HOPE TO BE, FOLLOWING THE APOSTOLIC SEE IN EVERYTHING AND AFFIRMING EVERYTHING DECIDED THEREBY.

I agree with that. In the early 500’s it was quite correct to say the Apostolic See had kept the Catholic faith without stain.

Notice the use of the past tense. He isn’t making any statement for the future.

 

[josie_L]

If it added clarity why, as I said, do so many find it confusing?

The filioque was meant to highlight the fact that Jesus was divine as well, i.e., not a creature of God as the Arians were proposing (but of the same essence/substance), but due to a language barrier things got confusing. I believe it was St. Maximus the Confessor that acknowledged this and set the record straight concerning the filioque.

Moreover, Maximus the Confessor defends Pope Martin’s teaching on the Filioque and answers the very objections of the Greeks, objections which the Orthodox still hold on to. Maximus’s response:

"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodic letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and, according to them, says: ‘The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis (ekporeuesthai) from the Son’. The other deals with the divine incarnation. "With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence… "They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things of which it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism). They have up till now produced no defence, although they have not yet rejected the things that they have themselves so wrongly introduced. “In accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them [the ‘also from the son’] in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodic letter] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to do this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot. In any case, having been accused, they will certainly take some care about this.”

bringyou.to/apologetics/a52.htm

 

[josie_L]

I agree with that. In the early 500’s it was quite correct to say the Apostolic See had kept the Catholic faith without stain.

Notice the use of the past tense. He isn’t making any statement for the future.

Notice the words preceding “and so the apostolic see. . . . . .”

 

[josie_L]

Do indulgences fall under this category?

Prior to the reformation they were being sold by representatives of the church to people on the understanding they would get their dead relatives out of purgatory immediately. They paid for the largest church in the world. Are you saying it wasn’t wrong on this teaching? Why did it reverse itself when it came under criticism for this teaching?

Selling indulgences was wrong (just like simony is), but not the teaching of indulgences (which we still retained).

 

[Nine_Two]

The filioque was meant to highlight the fact that Jesus was divine as well, i.e., not a creature of God as the Arians were proposing (but of the same essence/substance), but due to a language barrier things got confusing. I believe it was St. Maximus the Confessor that acknowledged this and set the record straight concerning the filioque.

Even growing up I didn’t know what it meant until it was explained to me. It certainly doesn’t make it more easy to understand. As you admit, it made things confusing.

 

[Nine_Two]

Notice the words preceding “and so the apostolic see. . . . . .”

Yes.

Notice the use of past tense when talking about the truth?