www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Latinn Rite attendance at Byzantine Rite Church

Why do you presume this?

Theodore Studite was so to say a papist, nevertheless he is one of the fathers of byzantine spiritual life. He is even a saint in orthodoxy.

Who's presuming? Its right in the text...

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm

But that is the truth of the matter. Do you want unity built upon lies? I want unity as much as anybody but what kind of unity is there when the Pope dogmatically defines that he is all these, and these people in communion with him doesn't believe it? Where is the unity in that?

I was taking jjp's post to mean: Why do you, Constantine, agree with the assertion that it's infallible? (He may not have meant that, of course, that was just my assumption.)

Perhaps you believe that the part that says it's infallible, is infallible.

I'm not saying that we cannot achieve "Orthodox"-like spirituality while being in communion with Rome. What I am saying is that regardless of our own spirituality and traditions (how Orthodox is it or how Latinized it is, it doesn't matter), if we are in communion with Rome we cannot reject any of her dogmas.

I believe it infallible because of this


And then it continues to define the Papacy.

Is a dogma fallible? You tell me.

But that still ends up at the same place: it says its infallible; but someone who doesn't believe it is, still won't be convinced.

If it doesn't bark, it ain't dogma.

Consider the incongruity: the Church of Rome assumes for itself the right to promulgate a "dogmatic" constitution for the entire Church of God, because the Church of Rome has determined unilaterally that it has the power and authority to do so, because, having severed communion with the other Apostolic Churches, there is nobody left to say "no".

Nothing is "dogmatic" until it is received by all. Rome has tried to impose; it has not bothered to ask for other opinions. That is not how true communion works.

That is fine, not everybody has to accept it. But if you don't accept it, then you can't be in communion with Rome. It is very simple. Rome believes something is a dogma, you don't. How can a communion be there?


It is dogmatic as far as Rome is concerned. As I said above, we can choose not to accept it, but let us not pretend that we can be in communion with Rome if we don't. Besides, why insist on being in communion with Rome if you will reject Pastor Aeternus? It makes no sense. Can you please explain why must we be in communion with Rome whilst rejecting her own dogmas?

Why stop there? Let us be in communion with the neo-Arians of today since it appears possible to be in communion with someone who rejects a tenet of your faith. We can dialogue with the neo-Arians, hopefully they will accept that Christ is indeed divine, but for the sake of unity, let us come into communion with them.

I don't entirely get it myself. But as I say, I'm not in any position to tell Rome "Don't try to have your cake and eat it too."

I don't see how this situation is any different from the non-Chalcedonians. Until they accept Chalcedon and all the other councils (I suppose they do not have any issues about the other councils, maybe I'm wrong) then there is no communion. But Catholics and Orthodox are engaged in dialogue with them and working towards union. But we're not insisting in communion until everything is finalized.

Well, as it's been said. All Byzantine Churches were Orthodox until the early 17th Century, I think. Then I think that Western Ukraine, and the Ruthenians were recognized by the Pope of Rome at that time, and were made in Communion with the West. I know there was a story, but...knowing this, there's been a unity and friendship between the Latin and the Eastern Catholic churches for almost half a millenium now, and it's even growing stronger.

See, you are wrong. There are, in fact, Agreed Christological Statements between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, in which each acknowledges the orthodoxy of the other's understanding of Christ. Neither is required to adopt the theological terminology of the other, and neither has to accept or reject the the Council of Chalcedon. The only issues preventing full communion today are cultural and political--in particular, how to deal with the issue of the saints of their respective Churches martyred by the others.

Bad analogy then. Doesn't change the fact that we're being disingenuous in rejecting Pastor Aeternus and claiming communion with Rome. I mean, how can we reject something that would cause any Roman Catholic to be excommunicated (actually, anathemized)? Let us not kid each other here, we know it is dogmatic as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned. Whether we accept it or not does not change the fact that is it Roman Catholic Dogma. And for communion we must, at the very least, do not object to it (like the Immaculate Conception).