Will pope Francis limit the pope's power?

[Cristiano]

This is simply incorrect. The Pope is only infalliblw when speaking ex cathedra. His personal utterances on any topic are not infallible.A Council can also speak infallibly.

I thought that the teachings of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium are infallible too; however, only if it is universal. Not infallible means that could be in error (e.g. Non universal ordinary magisterium) but the error is of any particular gravity. Personal/private utterances could be fallible and grave error could be possible but that does not imply heresy.

 

[JReducation]

There is a big mistake being made here and I think that people need to rethink these things before they hurt others.

When a pontiff TEACHES on faith or morals, he does not need to invoke infallibility. There is no way humanly possible for a pontiff to TEACH error. The operative word here is TEACH.

When he teaches, he is not speaking as a theologian or philosopher who is speculating. He is speaking as the Successor of St. Peter. Just as Peter did not invoke infallibility when he wrote his letters or when he preached in Acts to speak infallibly, his successors enjoy the same grace of office. It is not a grace of office reserved to Peter alone. The grace was given to the office, not to the person of Peter. Were it given to Peter and not to the office, we would not have Petrine Succession.

When the pope speaks on matters of discipline or other temporal matters, infallibility is not required. He speaks with the authority of the law giver. Christ plants the law in the heart of Peter and Peter hands it on to the Church. As Peter, he has the right to legislate. This is not an issue of infallibility, but an issue of justice. In this sense, it is a moral issue as justice is a moral virtue that we’re all bound to observe.

There seems to be a lot of dancing around the subject, giving the impression that if one dances long enough, one can find a loophole to avoid the authority of the pope. Is this the kind of image that we want to portray to those who are looking in and trying to learn about our faith?

 

[bilop]

There is a big mistake being made here and I think that people need to rethink these things before they hurt others.

When a pontiff TEACHES on faith or morals, he does not need to invoke infallibility. There is no way humanly possible for a pontiff to TEACH error. The operative word here is TEACH.

What mechanism do you believe stops the Pope from TEACHING error?

I believe he is prevented from TEACHING error, because the Curia, and orthodox bishops would never allow a statement against Dogma, Doctrine or Tradition to see the light of day.

When he teaches, he is not speaking as a theologian or philosopher who is speculating. He is speaking as the Successor of St. Peter. Just as Peter did not invoke infallibility when he wrote his letters or when he preached in Acts to speak infallibly, his successors enjoy the same grace of office. It is not a grace of office reserved to Peter alone. The grace was given to the office, not to the person of Peter. Were it given to Peter and not to the office, we would not have Petrine Succession.

When he teaches in the Extraordinary or Ordinary Magisterium yes. Not when he teaches in a book, or interview, or speech.

When the pope speaks on matters of discipline or other temporal matters, infallibility is not required. He speaks with the authority of the law giver. Christ plants the law in the heart of Peter and Peter hands it on to the Church. As Peter, he has the right to legislate. This is not an issue of infallibility, but an issue of justice. In this sense, it is a moral issue as justice is a moral virtue that we’re all bound to observe.

What do you mean by “temporal matters”? The Pope does not have authority to legislate on matters of prudential judgement.

There seems to be a lot of dancing around the subject, giving the impression that if one dances long enough, one can find a loophole to avoid the authority of the pope. Is this the kind of image that we want to portray to those who are looking in and trying to learn about our faith?

Yes, it is the kind of image we want to portray; especially to our Orthodox brethren, with whom we’d dearly love to reconcile. We don’t want people to think we believe the Pope can legislate outside the constraints of Dogma, Doctine and Tradition; because he can’t. Likewise, he doesn’t have authority to interfere in issues not directly concerned with Faith and Morals.

I don’t understand where this extreme ultramontanism is coming from? I certainly never heard it voiced during the Pontificates of Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

This is simply incorrect. The Pope is only infalliblw when speaking ex cathedra. His personal utterances on any topic are not infallible.A Council can also speak infallibly.

Nope.

When the Pope teaches definitively what orthodox bishops have always taught, he does so infallibly.

Every time a Pope teaches against abortion, it is infallible, because the Church has always taught the same. Likewise, Humanae Vitae’s teaching against artificial contraception, or Bl. John Paul II’s teaching against the possibility of women priests, is infallible, because the Church has always taught those things.

God Bless

 

[JReducation]

What mechanism do you believe stops the Pope from TEACHING error?

I believe he is prevented from TEACHING error, because the Curia, and orthodox bishops would never allow a statement against Dogma, Doctrine or Tradition to see the light of day.

This is not the faith of the Church. The faith of the Church is that when the Pope speaks as Peter, he cannot teach error in faith or morals. You seem to agree on this below when you speak about the teaching on abortion. We’re not saying anything different here. I believe our wording is different.

There is no mechanism necessary as the Holy Spirit protects the Church for such a situation where the pope would have to choose to teach error or truth. Remember, the operative word here is teach. When he speaks in an interview or writes a book as a theologian, he is not teaching as the successor of Peter. This protection only applies to teaching. History bears this out. No pope has ever taught error. Some have been rascals, but they have not taught error.

When he teaches in the Extraordinary or Ordinary Magisterium yes. Not when he teaches in a book, or interview, or speech.

 

[MorEphrem]

I don’t think he can.

One Pope can not bind a future Pope. Each Pope has the full powers of his office. As soon as he ceases to be Pope, any changes to Canon Law that Francis makes, can just be undone by the next Pope.

The only way to limit a Pope’s power would be for an Ecumenical Council to decide that there were doctrinal reason that some powers were not licit.

God Bless

Wouldn’t that be problematic because the Latin definition of an Ecumenical Council is that it’s Papally sanctioned?

Also, I see some people confusing the authority of ex cathedra statements and primacy with speaking with total impunity because the Pope is the successor of Peter and Peter was unchallenged in his episcopacy, which to that I respond Galatians 2:11-14.

 

[bilop]

This is not the faith of the Church. The faith of the Church is that when the Pope speaks as Peter, he cannot teach error in faith or morals. You seem to agree on this below when you speak about the teaching on abortion. We’re not saying anything different here. I believe our wording is different.

There is no mechanism necessary as the Holy Spirit protects the Church for such a situation where the pope would have to choose to teach error or truth. Remember, the operative word here is teach. When he speaks in an interview or writes a book as a theologian, he is not teaching as the successor of Peter. This protection only applies to teaching. History bears this out. No pope has ever taught error. Some have been rascals, but they have not taught error.

This is not considered teaching. For that reason I capitalized the word teach in my previous posts. The pope teaches only when he has the intent of teaching. Unless his intent it to teach, these situations are not considered teaching. Again, you and I are saying the same thing. The ordinary magisterium is when the pope speaks as the successor of Peter on faith or morals.

That’s what Canon Law is. The pope decides things from how to elect the next pope to how to celebrate the sacraments. That’s temporal power. Assignments, use of resources, buy and selling property, suspending and assigning people, negotiating treaties with other sovereign nations, those are all exercises in temporal power.

This is not the same as ultramontanism. This is clarifying the authority of the Primacy. We want to see the Orthodox and the Oriental Catholics reconciled, but we have to let the Holy See define the role and authority of the pope. We have to transmit it as it currently stands. If the pope changes it, then we change with him.

I don’t understand where this extreme ultramontanism is coming from? I certainly never heard it voiced during the Pontificates of Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

OK, so you’re agree the Pope’s temporal power is limited to the administration of the Church, and the Vatican State. Good. I thought you were going much further.

God Bless

 

[BanjoPlayer]

This is not the same as ultramontanism. This is clarifying the authority of the Primacy. We want to see the Orthodox and the Oriental Catholics reconciled, but we have to let the Holy See define the role and authority of the pope. We have to transmit it as it currently stands. If the pope changes it, then we change with him.

I don’t understand where this extreme ultramontanism is coming from? I certainly never heard it voiced during the Pontificates of Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

If the Pope changes what the Papacy is meant to be, I think if it rejects what it was considered to be in the past, we can resist and do have an obligation to resist his redefinition.

For an example, if the Pope were to claim tomorrow that he chooses to be just another Bishop, he can certainly live that way. But people are obligated to reject and resist his policy.

This idea that whatever the Pope does should be blindly accepted as sheep cannot be grounded in anything. We are only called to accept what the Pope teaches infallibly and what other things he may teach in consistency with tradition in a less authoritative manner. But what he teaches in a non-infallible manner that contradicts tradition as well as his decision which may indeed be misguided, one must resist.

 

[DebChris]

If the Pope changes what the Papacy is meant to be, I think if it rejects what it was considered to be in the past, we can resist and do have an obligation to resist his redefinition.

For an example, if the Pope were to claim tomorrow that he chooses to be just another Bishop, he can certainly live that way. But people are obligated to reject and resist his policy.

This idea that whatever the Pope does should be blindly accepted as sheep cannot be grounded in anything. We are only called to accept what the Pope teaches infallibly and what other things he may teach in consistency with tradition in a less authoritative manner. But what he teaches in a non-infallible manner that contradicts tradition as well as his decision which may indeed be misguided, one must resist.

Pope Francis has accepted the mantle of the papacy. Yes, he refers to himself as the Bishop of Rome, one of the titles of the Pope and continues to focus on his pastoral role. This pastoral role, or role of the shepherd was the role that Pope John Paul I, in his short pontificate sought to emphasize. There is no need for people to resist any policy that would see the Pope as Bishop, any more than seeing Peter as one of the Apostle. As it was Peter is the Apostle that Christ chose to also lead. It does not mean that the Peter did not share responsibility with the other apostles, nor that Pope Francis should not use a similar leadership style. Rather than contradiction with tradition, I see humility, The Pope remains in authority, even if the style may be less authoritarian.

 

[BanjoPlayer]

Pope Francis has accepted the mantle of the papacy. Yes, he refers to himself as the Bishop of Rome, one of the titles of the Pope and continues to focus on his pastoral role. This pastoral role, or role of the shepherd was the role that Pope John Paul I, in his short pontificate sought to emphasize. There is no need for people to resist any policy that would see the Pope as Bishop, any more than seeing Peter as one of the Apostle. As it was Peter is the Apostle that Christ chose to also lead. It does not mean that the Peter did not share responsibility with the other apostles, nor that Pope Francis should not use a similar leadership style. Rather than contradiction with tradition, I see humility, The Pope remains in authority, even if the style may be less authoritarian.

If this is what your conscience tells you, and this is what you arrive at after gathering all the truths pertaining to it, it is what you should do. But it is not the same that I would arrive at.

To relinquish ones authority in this case as the head of the Church and become just another Bishop is to forget ones duty. The Church is not at a point where we have all men similar to the first Apostles in the office of Bishop. So while it may well be true that St. Peter managed to stay without a need to exercise his authority, that is not true today.

The style one adopts, in favor of making it more palatable for the world, can also make the world think that the Pope has just done exactly what they asked for. The Pope may then wish to insist later on or practice the authority he hid from the world. But to the men and women of the world it will seem like a confusion.

The best example I see of this is that of the Church stance toward trying to be a passive observer of society that ever so “gently” corrects rather than actively correcting it. As a result, for around 60 years the Catholic people have developed a view of the Church as being some entity that can be separated from their faith. The result? The same people conclude that the Church commands need not be followed and what matters is their own personal beliefs.

Now you may argue that “is this not what you are doing as well?”. I have thought about it myself and I think its different. My basis for disagreeing with what I see today is based on what saintly men and women have held as true and good before for millenniums i.e. traditions. Whereas the people who dissent from the Church base their thinking on their own personal preferences and what they refer to as a “personal relationship” with Christ. The dominant idea today of Christians tend to be that what is needed is a personal acceptance of Christ and the Church is just an institution trying to monopolize this experience and use it to control the people.

 

[JReducation]

If the Pope changes what the Papacy is meant to be, I think if it rejects what it was considered to be in the past, we can resist and do have an obligation to resist his redefinition.

For an example, if the Pope were to claim tomorrow that he chooses to be just another Bishop, he can certainly live that way. But people are obligated to reject and resist his policy.

This idea that whatever the Pope does should be blindly accepted as sheep cannot be grounded in anything. We are only called to accept what the Pope teaches infallibly and what other things he may teach in consistency with tradition in a less authoritative manner. But what he teaches in a non-infallible manner that contradicts tradition as well as his decision which may indeed be misguided, one must resist.

No one has proposed that the papacy be redefined contrary to revealed truth. What Bl. John Paul proposed was that the papacy’s role could be restructured in such a way so that it was not an obstacle to Orthodox and Eastern Catholic reunification. In that sense, some of what we in the Latin Church think about the papacy would change, but the essence remains the same.

Pope Paul VI made it very clear that we are bound to comply and act with the pope not only in dogma and morals, which is where infallibility comes in, but also in other matters where the pope has authority. We must be careful not to limit the scope of the pope’s authority to faith and morals. As a temporal ruler, he has rights and as those governed by that ruler, we have duties. One of the best examples that I can think of is back in 1223 when Pope Honorius created the Custody of the Holy Land and gave it to the Franciscans with the very clear mandate that they were to serve the needs of Christians, but were to refrain from attempting to convert Jews, Muslims and Orthodox by anything other than the example of their lives. That’s neither a moral nor a doctrinal decree; however, it is authoritative. He had the right to be obeyed. And the friars there have obeyed ever since, because no pope has ever changed the original mandate.

Pope Francis has accepted the mantle of the papacy. Yes, he refers to himself as the Bishop of Rome, one of the titles of the Pope and continues to focus on his pastoral role. This pastoral role, or role of the shepherd was the role that Pope John Paul I, in his short pontificate sought to emphasize. There is no need for people to resist any policy that would see the Pope as Bishop, any more than seeing Peter as one of the Apostle. As it was Peter is the Apostle that Christ chose to also lead. It does not mean that the Peter did not share responsibility with the other apostles, nor that Pope Francis should not use a similar leadership style. Rather than contradiction with tradition, I see humility, The Pope remains in authority, even if the style may be less authoritarian.

Exactly. What you’re describing is collegiality. This is exactly what Pope Francis is looking to do. Collegiality takes nothing from the papacy, because the pope can share as much or as little authority as he wants.

Your statement about Peter being an apostle is correct. We see this in the foundation of the early Churches. The apostles functioned very autonomously. Thomas went to India and James to Spain, etc and Peter was none the wiser of what was going on. They were autonomous, but were united to Peter in the faith. The unity has to be in the faith, not in governance. Governance can be diverse and it is diverse.

All we have to do is look at the different codes of canon law. Our code does not bind the Eastern Catholics. They have their own code and below a global code of law for the East, each Church has it’s own legislation. It’s rather interesting to note that the pope has very little involvement over the patriarchs of the East. The law was deliberately written that way so as to give them greater freedom from the Latin Church. Yet, every code has one law in common. The beyond the pope there is no recourse. We cannot appeal to a former pope or to some commission when we disagree with the pope on matters where he has authority. These are more than just faith and morals. There are other areas of life where he has supreme authority, which he can share or reserve for himself.

I really thing that even when he shares, he’s still reserving. Because he always has the right to pull back and withdraw whatever authority he shares with other bishops. Therein lies the difference. No other bishop can do this.

Today he can say, “I’m a bishop like the rest.” Tomorrow he can say, “This does not work. Let’s go back to what we had yesterday.” In reality, when he says “I’m a bishop like the rest,” he’s talking about modus operandi, not essential attributes of the papacy.

 

[BanjoPlayer]

No one has proposed that the papacy be redefined contrary to revealed truth. What Bl. John Paul proposed was that the papacy’s role could be restructured in such a way so that it was not an obstacle to Orthodox and Eastern Catholic reunification. In that sense, some of what we in the Latin Church think about the papacy would change, but the essence remains the same.

Pope Paul VI made it very clear that we are bound to comply and act with the pope not only in dogma and morals, which is where infallibility comes in, but also in other matters where the pope has authority. We must be careful not to limit the scope of the pope’s authority to faith and morals. As a temporal ruler, he has rights and as those governed by that ruler, we have duties. One of the best examples that I can think of is back in 1223 when Pope Honorius created the Custody of the Holy Land and gave it to the Franciscans with the very clear mandate that they were to serve the needs of Christians, but were to refrain from attempting to convert Jews, Muslims and Orthodox by anything other than the example of their lives. That’s neither a moral nor a doctrinal decree; however, it is authoritative. He had the right to be obeyed. And the friars there have obeyed ever since, because no pope has ever changed the original mandate.

But this supposes that the laws and decrees they made are in a vacuum. That is never the case.

The role of the Pontiff in the Roman rite has been defended and held by Popes before Bl. JP II. To say that we can simply restructure it to please the Orthodox is to say that these Popes had based their thinking on groundless premises.

Now it may seem fine to do that too. But if that is indeed true, then every decision of the Church (apart from teaching) could be said to be based on groundless premises. So even the decision to reconcile with the Orthodox by restructuring is arbitrary. It may be defended as good today by this Pope but as bad tomorrow by another Pope. There is no constancy.

That is why it seems unreasonable to say that a Pope can change any tradition of the Church as he pleases. While it is true that a Pope cannot bind future Popes, it remains true that either the facts considered by the previous Pope are true or false. So even if there is no ecclesiastical binding, there is a logical binding. In other words, if a Pope today were to look at the same issue, he should see the same facts and premises of the previous Pope and arrive at the same conclusion (or at least something close to it). But if he arrives at some different contradictory conclusions (and the faithful can see that the premises that were considered before are still valid), then one runs in to a problem. Either all Popes are just arbitrary decision makers (which I think is not tenable) or the new view has failed to take in to account all that the previous view was based on.

 

[PJM]

=Cristiano;11453751]I thought that the teachings of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium are infallible too; however, only if it is universal. Not infallible means that could be in error (e.g. Non universal ordinary magisterium) but the error is of any particular gravity. Personal/private utterances could be fallible and grave error could be possible but that does not imply heresy.

IT’S CONDITIONAL

1. APPROVED BY THE POPE
2. ONLY ON FAITH TO BE BELIEVED MATTERS AND MORAL TEACHINGS:thumbsup:

 

[JReducation]

But this supposes that the laws and decrees they made are in a vacuum. That is never the case.

The role of the Pontiff in the Roman rite has been defended and held by Popes before Bl. JP II. To say that we can simply restructure it to please the Orthodox is to say that these Popes had based their thinking on groundless premises.

Now it may seem fine to do that too. But if that is indeed true, then every decision of the Church (apart from teaching) could be said to be based on groundless premises. So even the decision to reconcile with the Orthodox by restructuring is arbitrary. It may be defended as good today by this Pope but as bad tomorrow by another Pope. There is no constancy.

That is why it seems unreasonable to say that a Pope can change any tradition of the Church as he pleases. While it is true that a Pope cannot bind future Popes, it remains true that either the facts considered by the previous Pope are true or false. So even if there is no ecclesiastical binding, there is a logical binding. In other words, if a Pope today were to look at the same issue, he should see the same facts and premises of the previous Pope and arrive at the same conclusion (or at least something close to it). But if he arrives at some different contradictory conclusions (and the faithful can see that the premises that were considered before are still valid), then one runs in to a problem. Either all Popes are just arbitrary decision makers (which I think is not tenable) or the new view has failed to take in to account all that the previous view was based on.

Bl. John Paul never proceeded to specifics. But if one reads his statement in the context of Ut Unum Sint, he makes it clear that it can be done without sacrificing essence. This would not contradict previous popes. Externals and disciplines are not written in stone. I think that’s the point that John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now Francis subscribe to. Essence is unchangeable, the rest is subject to the prudence of the Magisterium.

I can see happening at a wider level than it is now. As it stands now, the role of the papacy among the Oriental Churches is define differently than it is in the Latin Church. In fact, this was a condition for reunification of some the Sui Iuris Churches. Basically it boils down to a hands off policy. The patriarch answers to the pope, but the pope intervenes very little in their laws, theology, and ritual. Even in the ordination of bishops, the rules are slightly different. In the Latin Church, you must have a mandate to ordain. That mandate must come from the pope. In the East, they use a slightly different system. The Patriarch informs the pope of his intent and the pope approves or disapproves. But the initiative comes from the Patriarch.

I think this is the difference in our vision of the papacy. For 2,000 years, the Bishop of Rome has been Pontiff to the Universal Church and he has also been Patriarch to the Latin Church, until Benedict XVI abolished that title. I think that in our mind, we Latin Catholics tend to generalize our understanding of the papacy to the entire Church. But the Easterners would probably disagree with some of what we hold. It would probably be in the area of tradition. They would argue that what is tradition to us in the Latin Church is not ALWAYS Catholic tradition, unless it’s universal.

I think this is where Pope John Paul was pointing to. The fact that there is a difference between East and West, why can’t that difference be tweaked even more.

I realize that I’m just inferring from the little that he said on the matter. So don’t take this to the store and try to spend it.

 

[felsguy]

If this is what your conscience tells you, and this is what you arrive at after gathering all the truths pertaining to it, it is what you should do. But it is not the same that I would arrive at.

Now you may argue that “is this not what you are doing as well?”. I have thought about it myself and I think its different. My basis for disagreeing with what I see today is based on what saintly men and women have held as true and good before for millenniums i.e. traditions. Whereas the people who dissent from the Church base their thinking on their own personal preferences and what they refer to as a “personal relationship” with Christ. The dominant idea today of Christians tend to be that what is needed is a personal acceptance of Christ and the Church is just an institution trying to monopolize this experience and use it to control the people.

Welcome to the cafeteria.

.

 

[BanjoPlayer]

Bl. John Paul never proceeded to specifics. But if one reads his statement in the context of Ut Unum Sint, he makes it clear that it can be done without sacrificing essence. This would not contradict previous popes. Externals and disciplines are not written in stone. I think that’s the point that John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now Francis subscribe to. Essence is unchangeable, the rest is subject to the prudence of the Magisterium.

I can see happening at a wider level than it is now. As it stands now, the role of the papacy among the Oriental Churches is define differently than it is in the Latin Church. In fact, this was a condition for reunification of some the Sui Iuris Churches. Basically it boils down to a hands off policy. The patriarch answers to the pope, but the pope intervenes very little in their laws, theology, and ritual. Even in the ordination of bishops, the rules are slightly different. In the Latin Church, you must have a mandate to ordain. That mandate must come from the pope. In the East, they use a slightly different system. The Patriarch informs the pope of his intent and the pope approves or disapproves. But the initiative comes from the Patriarch.

I think this is the difference in our vision of the papacy. For 2,000 years, the Bishop of Rome has been Pontiff to the Universal Church and he has also been Patriarch to the Latin Church, until Benedict XVI abolished that title. I think that in our mind, we Latin Catholics tend to generalize our understanding of the papacy to the entire Church. But the Easterners would probably disagree with some of what we hold. It would probably be in the area of tradition. They would argue that what is tradition to us in the Latin Church is not ALWAYS Catholic tradition, unless it’s universal.

I think this is where Pope John Paul was pointing to. The fact that there is a difference between East and West, why can’t that difference be tweaked even more.

I realize that I’m just inferring from the little that he said on the matter. So don’t take this to the store and try to spend it.

But such a tweaking makes the Church in to an entity that can be ever adjusted and tweaked. There will be questions, legitimately, on what else can be tweaked (marriage, priesthood for men, etc). How much can that other subject be pushed and so forth. The Church will not be a place of peace and clarity but a place of uncertainty and constant flux.

The Orthodox, as an example, have divorce and remarriage. Then there will be questions of whether the Church teaching on divorce itself cannot be tweaked.

Even if a Pope settles such other questions as impossible, it will still be reopened again and again for the reason that something as important as the Papacy was re-tweaked after people holding it to be something else.

Then there is an issue of what it means to do so. The Orthodox, by the fact of how many heresies arose and raged from the East (Iconoclasm for one), cannot obviously be considered as a very safe place for real tradition to be preserved. If we simply try to re-tweak our own tradition to match theirs, it just seems even more confusing.

 

[Elizium23]

Then there is an issue of what it means to do so. The Orthodox, by the fact of how many heresies arose and raged from the East (Iconoclasm for one), cannot obviously be considered as a very safe place for real tradition to be preserved. If we simply try to re-tweak our own tradition to match theirs, it just seems even more confusing.

Wow… just wow! I would like you to meet an Eastern Catholic and try saying that to him with a straight face and see how he treats you.

 

[BanjoPlayer]

Wow… just wow! I would like you to meet an Eastern Catholic and try saying that to him with a straight face and see how he treats you.

Well I did not mean any offense. But historically speaking, that is the truth. Many heresies did originate from the East. Even Arianism did have its origins in Antioch.

How would you also explain the Eastern concept of divorce and remarriage or the emerging laxity on the issue of contraception? That does not seem clearly very traditional to me.

 

[MorEphrem]

Then there is an issue of what it means to do so. The Orthodox, by the fact of how many heresies arose and raged from the East (Iconoclasm for one), cannot obviously be considered as a very safe place for real tradition to be preserved. If we simply try to re-tweak our own tradition to match theirs, it just seems even more confusing.

I’m not one to defend the Greek East but you must be kidding… The East is an unsafe place for Tradition? What of the Protestants, the worst heresy in Christendom? They renounce True Presence, the importance of the Mother of God, the Communion of Saints, the Three Persons of God and the Sacraments.

Well I did not mean any offense. But historically speaking, that is the truth. Many heresies did originate from the East. Even Arianism did have its origins in Antioch.

My LATIN spiritual director has always told me the more I strive for truth, the greater the evil I will come into contact with because Satan targets most those who are most devote. We must be most holy.

All joking aside, that is untrue. We were faced with Christological heresies because there was no understanding of Christology. Christianity originated from the degenerate East, so the East was the first to have to deal with heresy.

How would you also explain the Eastern concept of divorce and remarriage or the emerging laxity on the issue of contraception? That does not seem clearly very traditional to me.

Mhm… I’m not even going to touch go into this generalization further than asking where did the Sexual Revolution occur?

 

[BanjoPlayer]

I’m not one to defend the Greek East but you must be kidding… The East is an unsafe place for Tradition? What of the Protestants, the worst heresy in Christendom? They renounce True Presence, the importance of the Mother of God, the Communion of Saints, the Three Persons of God and the Sacraments.

My LATIN spiritual director has always told me the more I strive for truth, the greater the evil I will come into contact with because Satan targets most those who are most devote. We must be most holy.

All joking aside, that is untrue. We were faced with Christological heresies because there was no understanding of Christology. Christianity originated from the degenerate East, so the East was the first to have to deal with heresy.

Mhm… I’m not even going to touch go into this generalization further than asking where did the Sexual Revolution occur?

I am not sure you understood what I mean when I say heresies began and raged in the East. I meant by that claim the idea that most of the heresies had their origin in the East and also were promoted by even some Patriarchs (example, iconoclasm).

It is also true that the Orthodox at least have diverted from tradition in the teaching of marriage and in the relaxing or allowing of diverse opinions on contraception.

While it is true that heresies did exist in the West, the Church had never fallen in to it in the same way the East did, by virtue of the fact that Rome will and always be infallible in her teaching.

I also did not mean any offense here. But these are the facts. You can correct me if I am wrong in anything I have said here.