Would you convert if EO and RCC were in full communion?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel, I’m not sure whether to call this offensive, or ridiculous. Maybe both.

Of course there are occasionally people who switch sides. So what?

It happens in both directions you know.

But on a positive note, your more recent posts don’t seem to repeat your earlier habit of calling Eastern Catholic Churches “Rites” (unless I just overlooked it). Can we take this as a hopeful sign?

Peter J; I have never alluded to the subject of one “switching sides”. I have been relating to the subject of unity when both sides maintain their Expression of their Catholic faith.

When I refer to the subject dealing with Rites I hope not to offend you, and I hope you didn’t take it as a label to identify a Church.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

if an Orthodox church comes into unity with Rome…

Peter J; I have never alluded to the subject of one “switching sides”.

Oh brother.

I’m going to try to stop posting on this thread for a while. (Not making any promises.)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well, for one thing I think it is inaccurate to say that they still possess the same faith. So there’s that. There’s also the fact that your argument seems to be built on externalities that I have already explained in several places do not stand for the Orthodox faith in toto (yes, the liturgy and the Creed and whatnot are all integral parts of Orthodoxy, but they are not its sum…they must be understood and lived in an Orthodox fashion as well, admitting no such innovations as those in union with Rome have embraced). I don’t really know what more you want me to say here.

From a Western mindset it is difficult to determine that one Orthodox church out of unity with Rome and those sister church’s professing the same creed, liturgy etc… who have come into union with Rome no-longer possess the Orthodox faith. One looking from the outside in would not see any difference.

Please permit me this example; In Orthodoxy each Church has it’s own bishop, In the Western Church we too have our own bishops. All of which are self governing just as in Orthodoxy, neither side has detered from this apostolic foundation. Orthodox has different rites pertaining to each ones community and apostolic succession. In the West we have only one rite, but is expressed in the vernacular of each nation, people and tongue.

When it comes to doctrinal issues, the Orthodox follow the councils and the patriarch overseeing the council in union with the council members. This is a huge subject because we have to begin with who calls a council etc.

When it came to doctrinal issues in the West; The bishop of Rome calls a council united with all the bishops in the west and from the East in union with the magesterium.

The subject matters that you relate to that came from these councils in the West, Orthodoxy rejects. First of all Orthodoxy did not attend because their emperors would not allow them to leave their sees, secondly these eastern emperors saw a problem if the Eastern and Western Church’s united. Secular powers played a role in part of the schism. Thirdly the East saw the problems in the West a Western Catholic problem not an Eastern problem and saw no need to engage. Here is my summary; The apostolic Catholic faith came underattack, the Popes and the magesterium defended and protected this apostolic faith against all secular powers, scientific communities and new false freedoms such as relativism, communism etc…

The conclusion is Rome and the magesterium never moved from the apostolic faith contrary to what Orthodox claims. She defended the apostolic faith in terms and understanding that layed these attackers to rest, never deviating from the apostolic faith. During these times the East may not have been affected by these attacks such as the protestant revolution, Darwinism and Athiest to begin the list. The gates of hell came against Peter (Popes) and the Church during these trial times but never prevailed.

What you claim the Popes and magesterium proclaimed as doctrine in terms in order to maintain the apostolic faith and fend off the attackers is not Orthodox. Had Orthodoxy played a role in defending these heresies in the west, we may have terminology that both can agree too today, but this did not happen. It goes without saying pride played a part in this chapter of history.

If and when the Orthodox Church’s come under similar powerful attacks and I pray that they don’t, the popes and the magesterium have set in stone to fend off such attacks. The doctrine has never changed it remains apostolic.

These expressions of the apostolic faith is expressed in terms for the western powers and societies to understand them. The Orthodox rejects our western expression of the apostolic faith which the Orthodox do not understand from their own expression of faith.

We in the West do not reject your expression of faith expressed in liturgy and doctrine so long it is never heretical. The point is The West and East have not counciled together to rule on such matters. Orthodox from it’s autocephalous stances have rejected our Western expression of faith to defeat these western heresies.

I generalized this to gain a perspective of what you reject today from the West is not your Orthodoxy, but when broken down from scripture, sacred Tradition and revelation from Jesus Christ himelf, supported by the Early Church Fathers, described in terms that the Orthodox can understand and interpret from Orthodoxy, you will find these doctrines are not new and invented, but defended and expressed to new languages, mindsets, newly founded nations in order to grasp them, that the content of these doctrines remain rock and preach the same Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I hope that Orthodoxy celebrates in her autocephalous stance and do not fall into fear of really looking at what took place in history and when the Popes and magesterium defended the apostolic faith, the world witnessed heavenly signs and wonders that followed these apostolic teachings and confirmed them.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

From a Western mindset it is difficult to determine that one Orthodox church out of unity with Rome and those sister church’s professing the same creed, liturgy etc… who have come into union with Rome no-longer possess the Orthodox faith. One looking from the outside in would not see any difference.

Please permit me this example; In Orthodoxy each Church has it’s own bishop, In the Western Church we too have our own bishops. All of which are self governing just as in Orthodoxy, neither side has detered from this apostolic foundation. Orthodox has different rites pertaining to each ones community and apostolic succession. In the West we have only one rite, but is expressed in the vernacular of each nation, people and tongue.

When it comes to doctrinal issues, the Orthodox follow the councils and the patriarch overseeing the council in union with the council members. This is a huge subject because we have to begin with who calls a council etc.

When it came to doctrinal issues in the West; The bishop of Rome calls a council united with all the bishops in the west and from the East in union with the magesterium.

The subject matters that you relate to that came from these councils in the West, Orthodoxy rejects. First of all Orthodoxy did not attend because their emperors would not allow them to leave their sees, secondly these eastern emperors saw a problem if the Eastern and Western Church’s united. Secular powers played a role in part of the schism. Thirdly the East saw the problems in the West a Western Catholic problem not an Eastern problem and saw no need to engage. Here is my summary; The apostolic Catholic faith came underattack, the Popes and the magesterium defended and protected this apostolic faith against all secular powers, scientific communities and new false freedoms such as relativism, communism etc…

The conclusion is Rome and the magesterium never moved from the apostolic faith contrary to what Orthodox claims. She defended the apostolic faith in terms and understanding that layed these attackers to rest, never deviating from the apostolic faith. During these times the East may not have been affected by these attacks such as the protestant revolution, Darwinism and Athiest to begin the list. The gates of hell came against Peter and the Catholic Church but never prevailed.

What you claim the Popes and magesterium proclaimed as doctrine in terms in order to maintain the apostolic faith and fend off the attackers is not Orthodox. Had Orthodoxy played a role in defending these heresies in the west, we may have terminology that both can agree too today, but this did not happen. It goes without saying pride played a part in this chapter of history.

If and when the Orthodox Church’s come under similar powerful attacks and I pray that they don’t, the popes and the magesterium have set in stone to fend off such attacks. The doctrine has never changed it remains apostolic.

These expressions of the apostolic faith is expressed in terms for the western powers and societies to understand them. The Orthodox rejects our western expression of the apostolic faith which the Orthodox do not understand from their own expression of faith.

We in the West do not reject your expression of faith expressed in liturgy and doctrine so long it is never heretical. The point is The West and East have not counciled together to rule on such matters. Orthodox from it’s autocephalous stances have rejected our Western expression of faith to defeat these western heresies.

I generalized this to gain a perspective of what you reject today from the West is not your Orthodoxy, but when broken down from scripture, sacred Tradition and revelation from Jesus Christ himelf, supported by the Early Church Fathers, described in terms that the Orthodox can understand and interpret from Orthodoxy, you will find these doctrines are not new and invented, but defended and expressed to new languages, mindsets, newly founded nations in order to grasp them, that the content of these doctrines remain rock and preach the same Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I hope that Orthodoxy celebrates in her autocephalous stance and fear of really looking at what took place in history and when the Popes and magesterium defended the apostolic faith, the world witnessed heavenly signs and wonders that followed these apostolic teachings and confirmed them.

Peace be with you

 

[Cavaradossi]

Does anyone know whether such speculation took place during the first millennium?

Well, there is of course St. Augustine, upon whose speculation the modern Roman system of validity is based. Interestingly it seems that the Romans did not always have an affinity for St. Augustine’s idea of validity. When the Eastern Churches were negotiating reunion with Pope Damasus, one condition the Eastern Churches put forth was that they should continue, following their old custom, to receive Arian clergy into the Church at their clerical rank while in heresy, which implies that the Church of Rome did not follow this custom at that time, and possibly did not follow St. Augustine’s theory of validity. Most of the speculation on the mechanics of receiving the heterodox into the Church seems to be from the second millennium.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Oh brother.

I’m going to try to stop posting on this thread for a while. (Not making any promises.)

lol… I hope you did not think this Roman Catholic is trying to discredit Orthodoxy, or convert Orthodox members to become Latins?

I was surprised you used the term “switching sides”? The content of my posts never addresses conversions or converts, but communion and unity. Now it stands to reason why you appeared to be puzzled at some of my postings.

I hope to express here the similarities of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic faith differ in language, culture and expression of the apostolic faith. When Orthodox rejects terms expressed from the Western expression of faith which does not constitute a total separation but a schism.

Peace be with you

 

[sharpag]

When it came to doctrinal issues in the West; The bishop of Rome calls a council united with all the bishops in the west and from the East in union with the magesterium.

Unless of course we are speaking of Nicaea or other councils called by emperors.

From a Western mindset it is difficult to determine that one Orthodox church out of unity with Rome and those sister church’s professing the same creed, liturgy etc… who have come into union with Rome no-longer possess the Orthodox faith. One looking from the outside in would not see any difference

With respect to EC, the point for the EO is that one cannot submit to the idea of purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc. and still be Orthodox. So the idea the creeds and beliefs are the same is absurd.

I had a hard time following the later paragraphs on Church History because time periods were assumed and not explicitly stated but I believe a few basic assertions you made were wrong. First of all, emperors did support attempts at reunion because it meant more troops to defend Constantinople. Secondly, Orthodoxy did try to address some Western heresies which is part of the reason they rejected the filioque.

During these times the East may not have been affected by these attacks such as the protestant revolution, Darwinism and Athiest to begin the list.

Really? Is this a joke? Did the Bolshevik Revolution never happen?

I don’t think you have expressed or even acknowledged why the Orthodox act as they do and instead seem insistent on speaking past them.

 

[aemcpa]

You must remember that, for the Orthodox, time stopped in the 8th century., for some reason that has never been really explained except to say that it just is. Even though the first seven Councils developed and defined doctrines that had heretofore not been defined, the doctrines that emanated from those council somehow are not “doctrinal innovations”. That term is only applied to the councils in which they refused to participate but at which the bishops who remained in communion with the Prince of the Apostles continued to develop the true faith.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You must remember that, for the Orthodox, time stopped in the 8th century., for some reason that has never been really explained except to say that it just is. Even though the first seven Councils developed and defined doctrines that had heretofore not been defined, the doctrines that emanated from those council somehow are not “doctrinal innovations”. That term is only applied to the councils in which they refused to participate but at which the bishops who remained in communion with the Prince of the Apostles continued to develop the true faith.

Nonsense.

 

[sharpag]

You must remember that, for the Orthodox, time stopped in the 8th century., for some reason that has never been really explained except to say that it just is. Even though the first seven Councils developed and defined doctrines that had heretofore not been defined, the doctrines that emanated from those council somehow are not “doctrinal innovations”. That term is only applied to the councils in which they refused to participate but at which the bishops who remained in communion with the Prince of the Apostles continued to develop the true faith.

The Orthodox will admit that certain aspects of doctrine can be made more clear over time. What they reject is the creation of doctrine ex nihilo. There is no reason to act as if there is no difference.

 

[aidanbradypop]

The Orthodox will admit that certain aspects of doctrine can be made more clear over time. What they reject is the creation of doctrine ex nihilo. There is no reason to act as if there is no difference.

The Church believes doctrine cannot change. However, our understanding of a doctrine can grow.

 

[Trebor135]

The Church believes doctrine cannot change. However, our understanding of a doctrine can grow.

But papal infallibility is the clearest example of the “creation of doctrine ex nihilo”–irrefutably so.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

But papal infallibility is the clearest example of the “creation of doctrine ex nihilo”–irrefutably so.

Prove it; I guarantee your definition of papal infallibility is an invention and can never be proven from scripture, sacred Tradition nor the early Church Fathers. Could you give your definition of Papal infallibility? I have yet to come across an Orthodox who correctly defines papal infallibility.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

sharpag;10692193]Unless of course we are speaking of Nicaea or other councils called by emperors.

I was referencing councils from the protestant reformation to the present.

With respect to EC, the point for the EO is that one cannot submit to the idea of purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc. and still be Orthodox. So the idea the creeds and beliefs are the same is absurd.

Maybe you did not read up on all the posts that lead to the Orthodox poster confirming that even thou an Orthodox church that professed the same creed, liturgy etc and left with these into unity with Popes ceased to be Orthodox although the exterior mirrored the Orthodox. I think you may have jumped to an early conclusion to call the Orthodox poster s points absurd?

Purgatory, Immaculate Conception etc, was never discussed between the Orthodox church that returned in unity with the Popes and the Orthodox faith. You have introduced a new subject matter here. I would welcome your (name removed by moderator)ut if you can prove all EC who left the EO have now accepted purgatory, Immaculate Conception etc.

I had a hard time following the later paragraphs on Church History because time periods were assumed and not explicitly stated but I believe a few basic assertions you made were wrong. First of all, emperors did support attempts at reunion because it meant more troops to defend Constantinople. Secondly, Orthodoxy did try to address some Western heresies which is part of the reason they rejected the filioque.

I spoke in generalities so as not to get bogged down on specifics, and circular arguments. Did you just say that the Church was already in schism during the Constantine emperors, who made Constantinople the new Rome?

The Orthodox patriarch started the stink about the fiioque, unleaven bread not to discuss any heresies, the Orthodox patriarch addressed them to try and place his rival the Pope in heresy. I think you have this history backwards.

Really? Is this a joke? Did the Bolshevik Revolution never happen?

The Orthodox never had protestant western Christians leaving their communions. What does the Bolshevid reveloution has to do with Martin Luther and the protestant reformers?

I don’t think you have expressed or even acknowledged why the Orthodox act as they do and instead seem insistent on speaking past them.

Ok, I will try and address their insults to my posts more often for you

Peace be with you

 

[dzheremi]

I have yet to read an early church Father who endorses Papal Infallibility, which is not surprising, as history does not contain examples of this idea being invoked in practice.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

aemcpa;10692725]You must remember that, for the Orthodox, time stopped in the 8th century., for some reason that has never been really explained except to say that it just is

Here’s a thought that the Orthodox hold only to the 7 councils and are unable to council for the Whole church as in the Early church. Because they have no Roman bishop in order to council the whole apostolic church as one.

Even though the first seven Councils developed and defined doctrines that had heretofore not been defined, the doctrines that emanated from those council somehow are not “doctrinal innovations”. That term is only applied to the councils in which they refused to participate but at which the bishops who remained in communion with the Prince of the Apostles continued to develop the true faith.

Well said:thumbsup:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have yet to read an early church Father who endorses Papal Infallibility, which is not surprising, as history does not contain examples of this idea being invoked in practice.

Name an early church father that doesn’t support the Chair of Peter as being the prince of the apostles or denying infallibility.

 

[dzheremi]

How can a chair be a prince of anything? This is an issue with amateur RC apologetics: People find something from the Fathers that mentions St. Peter or Rome in a rightly exalted fashion, and automatically this is converted to “see what the Father wrote about the Pope/the Papacy”. It’s anachronistic and weird. You will not find ECFs who write in terms that match those of modern Roman dogmas, but you will find plenty of Latin apologetics that insist that everyone under the sun believed in all manner of RC-specific things that did not exist in the time of the early Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

How can a chair be a prince of anything? This is an issue with amateur RC apologetics: People find something from the Fathers that mentions St. Peter or Rome in a rightly exalted fashion, and automatically this is converted to “see what the Father wrote about the Pope/the Papacy”. It’s anachronistic and weird. You will not find ECFs who write in terms that match those of modern Roman dogmas, but you will find plenty of Latin apologetics that insist that everyone under the sun believed in all manner of RC-specific things that did not exist in the time of the early Church.

You never heard the expression “Ex Cathedra”, Peter has spoken, Rome has spoken? Such terms are used to describe the Popes speaking from the (authority) Chair of Peter = Ex Cathedra.

The Early Church Fathers reveal a high esteem for the Bishop of Rome and recognized his see as St.Peter’s.

As far as infallibility goes for the Popes, this expression is never used because his authority was never brought into question.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here’s a thought that the Orthodox hold only to the 7 councils and are unable to council for the Whole church as in the Early church. Because they have no Roman bishop in order to council the whole apostolic church as one.

False. Several Councils and regional synods have been held since that point, and although they are not called ecumenical, the inclusion of their anathematisms into the Synodikon of Orthodoxy makes their doctrinal authority undisputable.