www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Patriarch Alexy II sets conditions for Popes visit to Russia

Dear Mike,

Just kidding about the heresy thing . . .

But Rome is on very good terms with the Orthodox nowadays, even if that isn't always reciprocated.

And I wish that RC's were as strong in affirming and defending traditional Christian faith as the Orthodox - don't you?

So what if we have one centralized administrative head - does that prevent bishops and priests (and laity) from saying and doing the things a number of them say and do nowadays?

In any event, my own advice is if you are thinking about applying to the Vatican diplomatic service . . . perhaps that's not a good idea!

Pax Vobiscum!

Alex

Mike, you stated You mean not accepting the Immaculate Conception? Neither did St. Thomas Aquinas. In fact, he quite strongly opposed it. I see no retroactive movement to have him stripped of sainthood and declared a heretic.

If you are saying a condition of temporal punishment, perhaps. There has been no decree from a council which specifically condemns as heresy as you have stated. Orthodoxy certainly holds that prayers for the deacesed are efficacious. How is that heretical?

Divine Liturgies and services for the dead are offered much more frequently in the Constantinopolitan tradition that the Roman, whether Orthodox or Catholic.

Other than the recognition of a state of temporal punishment, the Councils (it was only mentioned at Florence and Trent) do not say much more.

If indeed you accept Vatican II, you should consider this very direct statement from Paragraph 17 of Unitatis Redintegratio specifically regarding the Orthodox: This is not my opinion but decree of a Council. I don't believe any received tradition steeped in heresy could logically belong to the FULL Catholic and apostolic character of the Church. How can it?

As I stated, your opinions do not appear to be compatible with that of the Magesterium as promulgated in a conciliar decree.

In December, 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenogoras removed the anathemas of 1054. Last year Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartolomeos solemnly reaffirmed the removal of the anathemas. How can athemas be removed if substantial positions of heresy exist on either side?

Again from Unitatis Redintegratio: And not all Orthodox think of us as heretics.

Hey folks,

I wouldn't worry about what this kid "Mike" has to say...he was born in 1985...so he's considered a "kid" to us...a kid that thinks he knows everything and that nobody else does.

It's just a typical phase that most young people go through...including myself.

Over the years, I have learned how totally WRONG I was about a lot of stuff, including about the stuff that Mike is saying right now.

Give him time to have the widsom to grow and understand better.

Then he'll realize that the G-d doesn't stress the importance of which Church you belong to Catholic or Orthodox...just as long as you follow the commands of Christ...which is to Love Others just as He loves us...to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, pray for those who died, etc. We'll be judged by these things...not by whether we are member of Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

In reality, it's not the POPE that will save souls...it's Christ G-d who will save souls. So, salvation doesn't depend on the Pope, it depends on Christ the TRUE HEAD of the Entire Church.

And yes, I am CATHOLIC and I said it!

Blessings,

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

SPDundas and Others,

To cast aside Mike's comments as juvenile and to assert that he will come to see that "it doesn't matter whether one is Catholic or Orthodox" is a gross lack of respect for him as a person and also quite arrogant.

Not everyone will come to see things the same way as you do once he grows older! This mindset is what is juvenile and unintelligent! Many peoples' "radical" positions are carried with them to their deathbeds. Just because some of you (or a good number of you, it matters not) underwent some metamorphosis in outlook on the importance of what Church one belongs to does not mean everybody else will do the same thing!

As we grow older, our ideas will also grow and develop, but this doesn't necessitate a complete rejection and abandonment of what we previously thought.

To not take seriously a nineteen or twenty year-old's comments because of his age is demeaning; I should know, I just turned eighteen.

No one rags on those who are over sixty-five for expressing their opinions, although it's quite possibly they are slowly losing their minds due to Alzheimer's or various other chronologically-related diseases.

Give me a break. Anyone with a mouth to speak, let him speak. No one's opinions on this subject are objectively better than any others. Lose the attitude and thoughtfully engage the queries.

Logos Teen

I have been guilty of equaling knowledge + age = wisdom, but I've discovered that someday's I can't remember yesterday :rolleyes: , not much of a advantage is it.

james

Jakub, I always thought that if you remembered that you forgot something, then you are not too badly off...

Exactly ! Good quote.

james

Whoa Logo-Teen, you speak as if you are in authority. I bow down before your majesty.

Why should I give respect to a younger person if he talks like that in this forum where majority of the folks are older than you are?

I merely said that I was ONCE a teen, such as yourself and Mike, thinking that I know everything and that everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

This Mike guy, sounds like me when I was younger. I was wise beyond my age, but still have this "attitude" that I knew better.

I was merely stating that I grew out of it because over time I have learned sooo MUCH more about many things in the Church and in LIFE in general.

For example, I once thought the Orthodox were heretics. But over the years, knowing the validility of their Sacraments, it really boils down to problems of how Primacy of the Pope is excercised. I once thought it was strictly forbidden for me to go to Divine Liturgy in the Orthodox Church, which over the years, made me realize how similar the Byzantine traditions we share.

So many other things that got me thinking that all this separation is purely political.

I condemn the Catholic's teaching that attending to an Orthodox Church doesn't fulfill the Sunday obligation. I mean, COME ON! SAME Liturgy, SAME VALID SACRAMENTS, SAME Apostolic Sucession. GIVE ME A BREAK! The rule of obligation is just purely POLITICAL, not spiritual. Catholic and Orthodox are in communion with each other in a MYSTICAL way mainly because of Valid Sacraments from the same Apostolic Succession of valid priests. So it's still my hope that the communion between two Churches will be completed upon physical unity.

So, that's just a small example of what I was thinking when I was younger...thinking that the Orthodox was all wrong, that many Catholic "liberals" were wrong, etc. I find out that I'm actually WRONG to believe that Orthodox are herectics, etc.

I was pointing out to people that Mike will grow out of this "I'm RIGHT, you're WRONG" stage.

Really, it's all EGO, which most younger people are guilty of. And you seem to have a HUGE ego by having this "tone" of your comments as being authoritative and telling older people that their perception on younger people is itself juvenile and telling older people to change their attitude. WHOA, you're just pushing it just a tad bit too far.

Take a long hard look at yourself and the post you just wrote. I did not like what you had to say.

Thank you for listening.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine
EX-Teen

I think you have to give Mike a break on some of this. In reading traditional Latin Rite catechisms, I have noticed they indicate some of the same things Mike is saying. I realize Vatican II occurred, and that the current Pope doesn't share those traditional views. But whether or not I agree with Pope JP II, I have to say his ecumenical views are something of an anomaly when compared to his predecessors. I am all for Church unity, but think that real and significant barriers to that unity exist at present. I think the "we are all once Church so let's forget our differences" view is a few years away from becoming reality in terms of the reunion of the Churches - which will come, eventually, but not now.

Thank you Charles.

Michael

SPDundas,

You seem to contradict yourself. You shame me because of my age and tell me that I think that I know everything, but yet you say that you think you know everything because you are old. I might remind you that there has been at least one teen age Pope that I know of. I have also known a lot of ignorant old people. Maybe YOU will grow out of your old person stage that says that all young people are a bunch of punks and don't know anything. To say that it doesn't matter what Church you belong to is heresy. There is one true Church and there is no salavation outside of her. This Church is the Holy Catholic Church. Where Peter is THERE is the Church. At least I haven't said anything heretical merely my more conservative and traditional views.

With love,
Michael

SPDundas
You condemn the Catholic's teaching huh? Man you are so smart! Wow! You know more than the Holy See! You are something else! So when you get old you become heretical? :p I don't think I want to get old then.

Diak,

I was speaking of the Bishops going into heresy and teaching it, not just anyone. The Bishop of Rome has never and cannot officially teach heresy. I am not aware of St. Thomas Aquinas rejecting the Immaculate Conception but even if he did the Church had not defined it yet.

Michael

I would guess that "early" suggests the heresies confronting the early church which were addressed at the councils of the first millenium.

In any case, the idea that Aquinas "quite strongly opposed it" might be overstated. He insisted that that Mary had to be redeemed, and worried that IC might preclude this necessity of this redemption. Solutions to this problem came after Aquinas. (Ultimately this is an issue of chronology; and I just don't think we have any sense whatsoever of what "time" means to the Eternal One.) I think it would be fair to say that he would not accept IC if it were to preclude this necessity of her being redeemed. And that perspective still holds.

Here's a link to a Thomist website with a lot of references on this point.
http://www.stthomasaquinas.net/stthomas/StThomas&IC.htm

Mike,

I still disagree with you. Rome can be wrong at times. Rome is NOT perfect. The theology of Rome does NOT reflect on the theology of any Eastern Catholic Churches. Nor is Rome superior than any other Catholic Churches.

A liturgy is a liturgy, a sacrament is a sacrament. VALID is VALID. So, therefore, Catholic is Orthodox and Orthodox is Catholic.

G-d certainly doesn't see it that way, so why should I? Why should Rome? (hint: there's NO schism in Heaven)

I really REALLY REALLY do not like your tone and your sarcastic comments. But then again, what do I expect from a young guy as yourself.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine