www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Peter the Rock

Ghazar (not Geezer),

I hope you are wrong about persecution but you may well be right. I like the quote from you RC friend.

Stop picking on Brian? But it's so much fun, especially when he won't respond.

Alright, alright, I'll leave him alone.
:rolleyes:

Dan Lauffer (the old Geezer, not Ghazar)

Dear Dan,

Take care of yourself.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Ghazar

I'am not sure how you came to equate Divine protection with prosperity, financhial success and architectural, intellectual, artistic and monetary achievements, as none of those things were alluded to in my post.

Dan
The pirate attack on Constantinople in 1204 was condemned by Pope Innocent III, but had it not been for the legitimate Crusades, the Byzantine Empire would undoubtedly have fallen to the Turks at a much earlier date. When Constantinople did finally fall in 1453, Pope Nicholas V quickly began advocating a new Crusade against the Turks, but unfortunately he did not receive widespread support for this endeavor.

Matthew,

I sent you a PM.

Dan L

Lawrence wrote:

"Ghazar, I'am not sure how you came to equate Divine protection with prosperity, financhial success and architectural, intellectual, artistic and monetary achievements, as none of those things were alluded to in my post."

Dear Lawrence,

I don't think its a big stretch at all. The same logic suppports both of these flawed notions. One is associating having the true faith with protection of finances and other earthly success (e.g. archetecture, science, etc.) while the other is associating having the true faith with protection of governments, empires and civilizations. I think they go hand in hand. As you have pointed out, some Latins see the military and material success of the Western world as a proof of Divine favor. The point I am making is that I think the Christians who suffer humiliation and defeat are much closer to the Lord of Glory who was crucified for us than any triumphant earthly kingdom which avoided such humiliation.

The above logic misses the point of the book of St. Job entirely. It is as if to say, if our nation gets conquered by Muslims this proves God is displeased with us or we have erred from the truth. It is akin to saying, if I am killed it is because I have sinned or no longer enjoy Divine protection. I think this mentality is anti-Christ who Himself was given up to death for us. I pray to God I never entertain such reasoning.

p.s. I'm not at all accusing you of doing this. I thought your original post was very respectful. I took what you wrote not as your own belief but an example of what some Latins believe. It is to them that my comments are pointed. I hope this is clear, brother.

Dear Ray,

>I think the world being flat and the scholarly
> papers in support of that notion is
> understated as insignificant compared to
> eternal damnation or salvation.
It was only a casual example of a majority opinion during a span of time, which opinion was off base of the facts.

Also, eternal damnation or salvation of anyone does not hang on anything about a schism, formal or not. Excommunication is not a guarantee that one has lost his salvation just the same as membership within any church does not guarantee salvation either. What does guarantee salvation (called Justification, Sanctification or Righteousness) is the persons own right use of his conscience within the theater of daily events arranged for him by Providence. (Article 2: Grace and Justification - Catholic Catechism) And that right use of the light of conscience is available to any and every man by choices of his free will through out the day. The light of moral conscience (sometimes call the natural law) is enough by which we might �gain� heaven. Built upon that may be the further and additional precepts of the church - but if cooperation with the natural law of conscience is not the solid foundation then the further and additional precepts of the Church are void and useless to the individual. The Church is an aide to and for a man working within his own conscience - not a substitute for.

As example - the entire Coptic Church is excumenucated according to some Orthodox churches - does that mean that on the day the ecumminication was issued now every Copt from that day forth now goes to hell until such time and the excummincation is lifted? I think not.

>The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and since there have been spiritual
> and Holy Saints that understood that a schism exists and the Church
> and our Hierarchs have told us that one does I don�t think it is accurate
As Maximos Aghiorgoussis Bishop of Pittsburgh once said �Nothing human is perfect including the bible, which is the end product of human cooperation with the divine spirit.�

Saints - are not error free. Nor are early fathers of the church (which disagreements necessitated Councils to settle matters). Nor are church hierarch error free excepting under certain conditions and on certain subjects of revealed faith joined to morals - otherwise they are simply human and prone to moments of human error.

It 1965 Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras (representing all Orthodoxy) and Pope Paul VI mutually and officially rescinded the excommunications involved while identifying that the excommunications were of a personal nature � meaning that certain named persons were excommunicated and not entire churches. These were personal censures that had not the purpose nor intentions to break ecclesiastical communion between churches but rather - certain persons. I think these Patriarchs can be trusted.

http://www.melkite.com/mle.html

I believe it was five people excommunicated in total (3 of Constantinople and 2 of Rome). The disagreement centered on the question - was it proper to use unleavened bread or leavened bread for the Eucharist. A subject which is not an item of divine revelation - therefore it was really and simply a human argument.

It was great �balls� for the Roman legate to go about trying to excommunicate a Patriarch and two of his advisors - so a personal pissing match erupted and Patriarch Keroulariros excommunicated the Legate and his buddy - right back.

There is a question as to if the Roman Legate even had the authority to issue the excommunication, and also the substance (it not being a matter of revealed and infallible faith if leavened or unleavened bread be used). Excommunication being reserved for items of revealed faith and proper steps of cannon law to be followed first.

Obviously there has been confusion among some church members since the start of the church - as to what is infallible (article of a revealed nature) faith and what items are not infallible�. What we MUST give mental accent to and what not necessary. Also, that issue (leavened or not) being proven a non-issue in as much as both churches continue to recognize the valid sacrement of either bread being used.

Schism: (noun) from the Latin �schisma�: defined as �a formal division into factions. A formal division within a Christian Church.�

It is to be noted that for a - long time - it was believed by all that a formal schism had taken place and you will find years of history books scholars (and probably even some saints) as well as official church documents, taking the view that a formal schism had taken place. Research into the facts prove otherwise [/I] no formal schism ever took place[/I]. The One Church did not divide into two churches - yet ecclesiastical differences did arise through misunderstandings and especially through the main misconception that a formal schism had taken place.

That misconception - continues today in many people who are either not aware of their own Church�s official stance or chose to ignore that stance.

It is perfectly understandable in a casual human way that we call that event - schism - in as much as it was called that and believed by all for such a long time and everyone knows what is being referred to. But it was not a schism.

Next subject�.

Simply stated, the word �church� means a congregation, a group of people. It can be said to have two aspects.

The group of people triumphant are those have died physically and are now �in� heaven. It does not matter which church they had belonged to down here (while in the body) or any church at all. What matters is that they had became justified through cooperation with God who speaks to us within our conscience. That cooperation is the essential means of sanctification or Justification. No other means exist.

The church militant is that human aspect �down here� in the body. As such it has communion with the church triumphant - but its members being still in the body - may fail in the work of justification. Membership within the church militant as far as a human organization (divinely inspired as it is) is not a requirement of sanctification. One does not become sanctified by being a member of the church nor reception of the sacraments if one is ignoring the real work of sanctification that takes place within conscience.

This is my view.
-ray

Dear Ray,

I copied and pasted this from a doing a search on google and
wondered if this proclaimed Infallible Statement is considered truthful or revised and understood differently at this time?

Has there been a nullifying bull issued that I'm not aware of, or do newer papers from the Vatican negate this Infallible Bull? Can a proclaimed infallible bull be non-infallible latter? I'm still trying to understand the contradictions that I seem to see.

I thank you for your post and kind disposition. I do not agree with all of your understanding, your are correct no human being is error free.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church. Here is how the Popes defined it:

* There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

* We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

* The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

The Orthodox have not submitted to the Supreme authority Roman Pontiff correct?

Thanks in advance.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

Boy have times changed! Thank God Almighty!

I am not an expert, but I believe that after Vatican II, such extreme rhetoric has been put 'out to pasture', and that current encyclicals of the Popes since then, and the council are infact, contrary to this extremism.

As for relations between Catholics and Orthodox, let us not forget that the mutual 'anathemas' had been lifted in the mid 1900's.

In Christ,
Alice

Matthew,

"The Orthodox have not submitted to the Supreme authority Roman Pontiff correct?"

No they have not and it is inconcievable that they ever would. The claims of infallibility foisted upon the Church by VCI will have to be withdrawn. This will cause temporary confusion among some but great relief to most.

In this matter the West desperately needs the East.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Matthew,

Your quotes are interesting but are not reflective of the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. You can�t just pick and choose selected quotes from the past and apply them out of context. When you pick and choose the teachings you like you become a Protestant.

In recent years Rome has backed away from its arrogance of the middle ages � and its reexamination of its ecclesiology and adjustment of it has been very positive for the Church. The documents of the later General Councils in the West (especially Vatican II) clearly show a departure from the arrogance of the Middle Ages. [And, truly, one needs to study the history of that period to understand those proclamations in their proper context.]

Did you realize that, in the span of years from which you selected your quotes (1215-1441), common celebration for the Divine Liturgy and Eucharistic sharing between Catholics and Orthodox was still pretty much the norm (even though the formal separation is usually dated in 1054)? How do you explain such statements in light of the very real fact that those statements did not prevent the concelebration of the Divine Liturgy during that period?

Admin

Dear Dan,

"The Orthodox have not submitted to the Supreme authority Roman Pontiff correct?"


"Your Quote in response to my above question"
"No they have not and it is inconcievable that they ever would."

From what I can tell from what I've learned and read it seems that if there is not submission to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff the Roman Catholic Church considers those who don't to be in schism. There seems to be a lot from Rome that support that notion. It's seems to be a real priority with severe consequences. The Orthodox Saints that did not submitt to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff whose icons are in Byzantine Catholic Churchs apparently according to the teachings should not be there since they would be considered schismatic and suffer those consequences according the older Roman Catholic statements. It does not seem right to me for the Roman Catholic Church vacilate on such serious matters and change their understanding and statements from time to time. I say this because it seems like quite a serious contradiction. I just does not make sense to me.

So I agree with your statement Dan. "No they have not and it is inconcievable that they ever would."

So if the Orthodox including her Saints are not going to change and submitt to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff then the claims of infallibility must be removed. That seems to me to be a real big issue. It seems the Orthodox are not comfortable with it's ramifications.

Thanks for you PM, take care of your self and keep us in your prayers! I really have to go the internet has become something of a temptation for me and taking up to much time. If I've said anything that needs to be corrected or brought to my attention, please let me know.

Dear Alice,

I guess the way to look at it is the mutual 'anathemas' had been lifted in the mid 1900's but a lot of matters are either misunderstood or just left unresolved. I just don't see the Orthodox changing her traditional teachings.

I wrote to Anthony Dragani and I wanted to share his response as shown below. I really don't think the Orthodox will ever accept Papal infallibility.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

I don't desire to be drawn into a debate with you. Nor am I an apologist by nature. I do not think that it is ultimately fair to proof-text Church Fathers in order to make a point, as is often done during debates on the papacy.

I would, however, like to make a few observations, some of which may surprise you:

- Papal infallibility, as it is understood and expressed by Vatican I, is not plainly taught by the Church Fathers. Rather, it is a later development. The question is this: is it a legitimate development? I believe that it is, and that the seeds of this development are found in the Fathers. You are free to disagree with me.

- In any case, Catholic theology traditionally has believed in the possibility of doctrinal development: that the Church's understanding of doctrines can evolve and become more complete over time. Orthodox theology has tended to avoid doctrinal development, and to prefer only the definitions and language of the Fathers. This is a point that needs further investigation.

- Ultimately, it is the Church that is infallible. I believe that sometimes we Catholics do a disservice when we speak as if the infallibility is concentrated in the person of the Pope. The infallibility is in the Church. The Pope, in his office, exercises that infallibility in specific ways. But there are also other ways in which the infallibility of the Church is manifested, such as in Ecumenical Councils. When explained in this way, papal infallibility makes more theological sense.


Dear Administrator,

Some Orthodox would argue that the Roman Catholic Church has embraced your statement directed at me.

"When you pick and choose the teachings you like you become a Protestant."

I'm sorry if the quotes I provided are not
reflective of the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

Certainly, many new Roman Catholic Churches and seem Protestant to me and even to many that are members, at least that I've talked with.

Forgive me for my ignorance or taking things out of context.

I choose the teachings of Holy Orthodoxy.

To raise the issue about the Fourth Crusade...I happen to think that it gravely weakened the empire and made it succeptible to Ottoman Conquest. The recaptured Greek empire was but a shadow of itself. Whilst pre-1204 Empire was not as big, historians have argued - on the whole - that it was fairly good in solifiying itself against enemies. The Fourth Crusade weakened it drastically.

Some posters suggested that a truely ecumenical council would take about twenty years to finish. A wiser head said that it would take 20 years for the Orthodox to clean up the messes they have made so a council could be held.

It would take at least that long for the RCC to do the same thing.

No matter how long the council would take I think it would be well worth it and would cure the arrogance so often on display from both sides.

I hope world-wide persecution is not needed before such a council is called.

Dan L

I'am sure the issue of Papal Infallibility has already been debated extensively on this forum, so I'd rather not attempt to re-open the argument. What I will say though, is that while Papal Infallibility may be an alien concept to the Orthodox Church, the idea of one universal Church NOT headed by an Infallible Pope is as equally alien to the Latin faithful. Unfortunately for the East, many of those in the Latin Church who now question the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, also in many cases reject the Church's teachings on abortion, homosexuality, birth control, divorce, pre-marital sex and a myriad of other subjects.

Lawrence,

Sadly you are correct about those liberals who reject Papal Infallibility and see that as an excuse to rebel against all that is holy. However, this is precisely why I think that the West desparately needs the East. We and Orthodoxy can teach the West, one might hope, how it is possible to live a life of theological integrity (more or less) without a straw boss. If not that perhaps all of Christianity can learn to live together with one section having an infallible pope and the rest not needing one.

Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But it is often the ideas that at first seem crazy that provide solutions to intractable problems. What is unconscienable is that we continue to refuse to listen to each other.

Dan L