www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Snobs being an obstacle for the Unity of the catholics and orthodox

Good Morning,

LOL I start a thread and enter a couple of posts then i go sleep. I wake up the second day with all of you already discussed the topic while im sleeping, so i dont get to discuss much. This time difference is wierd.

Greetings (good night)

Come on...we can't let this thread die out...let's give someone else the chance to be the last post

alot of postings last night...don't have time to respond to all of it but let's hit a few key issues:

I agree that the Church can not err in theological doctrines. Zenovia, you then go on to mention things like the Assumption and the Immaculate conception. Two RC Doctrines that are very much entwined. From an Orthodox Church perspective, that you must know being Orthodox yourself, can not accept the immaculate conception, without getting into a theological treatice (I'll leave that to Apothinon and Ghosty...they're much better at than I could ever be ) that completely destroys the eastern/ancient concept of Original Sin. So if you believe as I do, and I believe most if not all reading this believe that the Church can not err, than simply utilizing the immaculate conception as an example, one of the two churches has err'd. It would logically follow that, If the Church can not err, than one is not a Church. Unless you want to believe, (personally I think this has some merit) where Hans Kung (who was excommunicated by the RC church for such views) that the Church/Pope is not infallable (100% correct based on guidance by the Holy Spirit) but rather, I believe his term was indefectability (light reading :p a long time ago) which stated the Church could err but through the guidance of the Holy Spirit would never stray too far and be guided back. I guess I have views, and I should as an Orthodox Christian, that mirror this viewpoint. I do believe the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches can be reunited again. (still a distance away.) But, it's pretty clear that if "THE CHURCH" can not err...and there are some issues where they are diametrically opposed than it logically follows that one of the bodies is not "THE CHURCH". And neither side is going to that conclusion. With the RC Church having a doctrine of papal infallability, there is too big a hurdle, since they have gotten themselves into a corner with that doctrine at which time they can not get themselves out of.

As well someone must be in charge. With the Orthodox Churches the Bishop is in charge of their local Church. When things come up of a theological or doctrinal nature, their are synods, although nothing could be changed without an ecumencial council, which hasn't been needed in over 1000 years. If you know what you believe, and don't let the 'nit pickers' pick to unravel things (as has been done in the RC church which is why there has been so much 'development' in how to look at things based on the culture and eyes looking at the time)...The Church is the Church. It doesn't need theological or doctrinal changes just because the century changes...the basic theological truths are the basic theological truths...A good example of not allowing local control is right in the beloved Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh...The local heirarchy of a sui juris church over 10 years ago said the time is right to reinstate married clergy...the local bishops should have easily been able to implement that if they saw the issue locally, and there was no theological reason for dening such in the first place, Rome exertered it's "authority" and stopped it. Now as time has passed I see at least the bishop of Parma has begun ordaining married men...I applaud him...it is a traditional discipline, not a doctrine or dogma and should be handled at the local level, there was no theological reason Rome should have stepped in...the Bishop of Parma, appears to be "in charge" as he should be. Another bishop of the same jurisdiction, is great at assurting his "in charge" local authority...however, everything he touches turns evil or goes away...that's where there needs to be a mechanism of the local heirarchs (and Rome if necessary) to be able to hold a synod to not allow such things to occur. So local control, unless there is a bigger issue. Which is exactly what the role of the Bishop of Rome was, let local control exist, unless he was asked to mediate between two fellow patriarchs. The problem came into play when the other bishops viewed the bishop of Rome as having an issue that needed mediation, and he felt he did not need to "submit to a mediator" (would have been the patriarch of Constantinope in that case)...since as 1st bishop amongst equals dropped amongst equals...

Chris

Hans Kung was stripped of his authority to teach as a Catholic theologian. However, he was never excommunicated.

Dear Chris you said:

I say:

Okay! The reason that the Immaculate Conception was made into a doctrine was because a Saint Katherine, (forgot her last name) was told by our Theotokos, that she was the Immaculate Conception. There had been many miracles attested to her.

Now when the Pope made it into a doctrine, many bishops opposed him. I can't help but feel that there had been a great deal of Protestant concepts infiltrating the Church in regards to the position of our Theotokos, otherwise why was it so necessary to establish such a doctrine at the date it was established.

Saint Bernadette then appeared with her visions, and this ignorant peasant girl, that had no concept of what the Immacualte Conception even was, said that the lady in the vision revealed herself as being the 'Immaculate Conception'.

Now that's how it came about, but what the Orthodox want is not a denial of the doctrines, but want them to be explained and defined more fully.

Zenovia

Dear Zenovia,

Wasn't it St. Bernadette?

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Alice you said:

I say:

Actually the doctrine came about because of Saint Katherine of the Miraculous Medal. Afterwards, Saint Bernadette was asked to find out who the Lady in her visions was. When she asked, she was told that she was the Immaculate Conception. At least this is what I believe. If anyone knows better, than I will stand corrected.

Zenovia

The saint who received the "Miraculous Medal" in a vision of our Lady was St Catherine Laboure.

That was NEVER the reason the Immaculate Conception was made into a doctrine! In the Catholic Churche, the only ruling on visions are if they are "harmful" to faith or not.. No Catholic is obliged to believe any set of visions and certainly this has no influence on the devlopment of doctrine.

To clear up the timeline:

The apparitions at Rue de Bas in Paris, France to St. Catherine Laboure were in 1830. This is where the Miraculous Medal comes from. The proper name of the Miraculous Medal is actually properly known as the Medal of the Immaculate Conception. On the obverse of the Medal is the title "O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee." On the reverse is an M intwined with a cross with 12 stars around it.

On 8 December 1854, Pope Pius IX in the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus wrote among other things In 1846, the Holy Mother of God appeared in La Salette, France to two children and told them of the horrors of the next century.

Then, starting on 11 February 1858 Our Lady appeared to St. Bernadette Soubirous. Which lead to the healing waters at Lourdes.

And, finally, (I think) she appeared in 1871 on the border between France and Germany in the Franco-Prussian War.

That's 4 Apparitions in one Country in 40 years.

Dr. Eric

Who is not an apparition chaser by any means.

I stand corrected. I knew there was some form of severe discipline. Thank you for the clarification.