|
2 members (EasternChristian19, 1 invisible),
1,537
guests, and
92
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,508
Posts417,509
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5 |
The question I have been facing is, regardless of how this "should" be, how do Eastern Catholics reconcile themselves to what *is*?
I realize this is now totally off topic to the OP, but it is something I have been struggling a lot with.
Since the IC has been infallibly dogmatized at pain of anathema for the entire Catholic Church, how does an Eastern Catholic reconcile themself to this? Pretend the elephant is not in the room?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209 |
Interesting question. I don't pretend to have an answer to how to reconcile it for everyone. Heck, I don't even know how to reconcile Vatican II and the Council of Florence on the question of extra ecclessi nulla salsu, and those are both 'western,' councils!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288 |
Interesting question. I don't pretend to have an answer to how to reconcile it for everyone. Heck, I don't even know how to reconcile Vatican II and the Council of Florence on the question of extra ecclessi nulla salsu, and those are both 'western,' councils! ByzBob, Glory to Jesus Christ! I have no idea, what is the issue with Vatican II and the Council of Florence on the question of extra ecclessi nulla salsu ? Kyrie eleison, Manuel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209 |
Dear Manuel,
I meant Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, not ecclessi. Sorry for not spell checking.
Yrs,
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288 |
Dear ByzBob,
I'm still confused. I do not know all the issues of the Church and I do not know Latin. I have technically always been Catholic since I was baptized as a baby in the Church, but I was not raised and have only been Catholic, as far as I'm concerned, for a year and a half.
So could you please break down the issue between these two western councils?
Thank you and Kyrie eleison,
Manuel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209 |
Wikipedia has a good history of the dogma in the Roman Catholic, under Roman Catholic statements of this teaching. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salusThis is one example of a Roman dogma that has undergone serious developement, to the point that Vatican II calls Protestant ecclesia communities 'a means of salvation.' That seems to be at serious odd with the Council of Florence saying: It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church. What does all this mean? It means that the concept of dogma in the RC appears to be more fluid than some would like to admit. Even the definition of Papal Infallibility/Universal Jurisdiction is not being discussed with the Orthodox Church, and may possibly be undergoing a development of sorts. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...i_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html45. It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us. I'm not sure what the outcome of these talks will be, but if Rome consider Vatican 1 to be settled doctrine, then why invest the time in discussing it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776 Likes: 24
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776 Likes: 24 |
Without opening the whole issue of the IC once more, ad nauseam, I think you reconcile by simply acknowledging that the IC is the Latin church's way of articulating the sinlessness of the Theotokos that both east and west accept as the long-standing Tradition of the Church.
To be more back on topic, I do believe that it serves no one if, in our effort to be more Orthodox we become less Catholic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I'm not sure what the outcome of these talks will be, but if Rome consider Vatican 1 to be settled doctrine, then why invest the time in discussing it? I agree with Melkite Archbishop Zoghby who said: ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"].
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
To be more back on topic, I do believe that it serves no one if, in our effort to be more Orthodox we become less Catholic. I agree, but of course I believe that the Eastern Orthodox are Catholic, just as Catholic as the Latin West.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,930
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,930 |
I'm not sure what the outcome of these talks will be, but if Rome consider Vatican 1 to be settled doctrine, then why invest the time in discussing it? I agree with Melkite Archbishop Zoghby who said: ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"]. Zogby's book 'We are all Schismatics' is a really good book.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776 Likes: 24
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776 Likes: 24 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5 |
I think you reconcile by simply acknowledging that the IC is the Latin church's way of articulating the sinlessness of the Theotokos that both east and west accept as the long-standing Tradition of the Church. That's a great way of phrasing it, thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,392 Likes: 32
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,392 Likes: 32 |
I agree with Melkite Archbishop Zoghby who said: ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"]. I'm confident that Bishop Elias was a good man, but even good men can make bad pronouncements that can even lead others astray.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I agree with Melkite Archbishop Zoghby who said: ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"]. I'm confident that Bishop Elias was a good man, but even good men can make bad pronouncements that can even lead others astray. Yes, even good Popes can lead people astray. Be that as it may, on the issue of Vatican I as a particular synod of the West I agree with Zoghby.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
I'm confident that Bishop Elias was a good man, but even good men can make bad pronouncements that can even lead others astray. I am sure you have some objective criteria for thinking His Grace was in error. And "the Pope said so" doesn't qualify. In any case, were that true, the Holy Father has all sorts of remedies, pastoral and canonical, at his disposal. The Melkite Initiative--for it is now the official policy of the Melkite synod--continues apace.
|
|
|
|
|
