Catholic Church has never Changed doctrine.

[James the Persian]

Don't worry UD, you've got it right... but things are closer than James would like... the truth can not be stopped.... but you can't blame James- he loves his newly found Church and will defend it and promote it.... you can bet when he was a Lutheran he thought he was right then too!

Firstly, if reunion really were as close as you believe then I'd be extremely happy about it. Despite your snide comments to the contrary, I am not at all opposed to reunion, merely to an outward reunion that does not reflect a common faith. If such were to happen I would, along with almost every Orthodox Christian I know, certainly refuse to go along with it. This is the problem when it comes to reunion. Both our Churches believe we teach the whole and unadulterated truth and neither side is willing to back down from that. Whichever Church is right, this refusal to compromise is correct for that Church. For true reunion to occur then, one of us must admit that we have erred and back down. Would you not agree with this?

Whilst you are undoubtedly correct that there is a point I my life when I thought the Lutheran church correct, it was a very long time ago and before I put any serious effort into researching the Church. Once I did, though, it did not take long for me to realise the errors of Lutheranism. I thought then, and still do, that only Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism could be the truth but my investigations lead me to reject Roman Catholicism and become Orthodox. Why do you seem to be unable to respect this viewpoint? I don't question your sincerity as a Roman Catholic nor try to make out as though you have ulterior motives for defending your Church. Why then must my faith be disregarded as convert zeal, and how long must I be Orthodox before you cease to do this? I started my catechumenate some 5 years ago now and have been fully Orthodox for 4. Surely this is long enough for you to cease thinking of me as a recent convert?

I think it is important to understand that Honorius was a heretic.... but using the standard that EO's try to use... EVERY Pope, Patriarch, Biship, Council that came before was heretical. That's right.... after all, they didn't teach "the truth" as it has been defined by a council.... so each subsequent council makes all previous catholics "heretics".... what a foolish way to look at it. After all, Pope Honorius never tought anything contrary to what was already defined by a council... never supported anything that was already defined by a council... and was never given a chance to repent.... you see, in the theological "realm", people are not heretics, but people with heretical ideas... you get me? Arius, Nestorius, etc. would not have been heretics in they repented when faced with authentic church teachings... see what I mean?

In this you are quite wrong. We Orthodox do not consider anyone a heretic until they are condemned as such. Honorius came under a personal anathema and so we are correct to regard him as a heretic, as are those RCs who accept the same (such as whoever compiled the Catholic Encyclopedia). His predecessors were certainly not heretics even if they may have held to the odd heretical belief. You are quite right that had one of the great heresiarchs repented they would not be heretics either, but I fail to see the relevance of this seeing as your beliefs and mine do not differ on the issue.

As an example that what you say is untrue, Bl. Augustine of Hippo is an Orthodox saint despite some of his teachings being heretical. He was, however, never condemned and asked for but did not receive correction if anything he wrote was wrong. We consider him a great example of piety whilst disregarding many of his teachings, and this is not all that unusual. I could give you a pretty long list of such saints. Conversely, however, I've come across RCs who regard St. John Cassian as a heretic which does show the sort of attitude you were accusing us of.

Honorius' predecessors were, then, in no wise heretics. I could make a case for all those filioquist Popes after the 8th Ecumenical Council being heretics in that they placed themselves under that council's anathema, but even that would be pushing things a bit far given that the RCC ceased to recognise the council as ecumenical after the Schism. At worst, then, any later Pope could have been no more than an unwitting follower of heresy so long as they genuinely believed the Robber Council that deposed St. Photios was ecumenical.

I don't know where you are getting your information as to our beliefs. If it is from misinterpreting my posts then I apologise for any lack of clarity but, given your recent change in attitude towards my arguments, I doubt that is all there is to it. You seem to be deliberately trying to cast us in a negative light so as to blame the entire Schism and its continuing existence upon us and us alone. If this is indeed your intention then I shall cease to reply to your posts further.

James

 

[Quiddity]

I don't know where you are getting your information as to our beliefs. If it is from misinterpreting my posts then I apologise for any lack of clarity but, given your recent change in attitude towards my arguments, I doubt that is all there is to it. You seem to be deliberately trying to cast us in a negative light so as to blame the entire Schism and its continuing existence upon us and us alone. If this is indeed your intention then I shall cease to reply to your posts further.

Thank you for your reply. I'll let Scott answer most of what you said. My intention is only to get proper sources from you. I've asked for this back in ac.com but you may have missed it. I would really appreciate it. Websites would probably be best for me at this moment.

~Victor

 

[James the Persian]

Thank you for your reply. I'll let Scott answer most of what you said. My intention is only to get proper sources from you. I've asked for this back in ac.com but you may have missed it. I would really appreciate it. Websites would probably be best for me at this moment.

~Victor

What exactly would you like sources for? Orthodox teaching in general, or something specific?I must admit that I had missed your request for sources previously but I would be only too happy to provide you with some if you let me know what you're after. Providing you with website links shouldn't be a problem in most cases. Please let me know how I can help you out best.

James

 

[Quiddity]

What exactly would you like sources for? Orthodox teaching in general, or something specific?I must admit that I had missed your request for sources previously but I would be only too happy to provide you with some if you let me know what you're after. Providing you with website links shouldn't be a problem in most cases. Please let me know how I can help you out best.

James

I guess I'm looking for an online Cathecism. From my understanding you guys don't have an official one. I just want to know where you stand on issues.

~Victor

 

[James the Persian]

I guess I'm looking for an online Cathecism. From my understanding you guys don't have an official one. I just want to know where you stand on issues.

~Victor

Victor,

You're right that there is no official catechism as there is for the RCC - you may have noticed that we don't like totry and define every little detail. Generally speaking our catechisms are personal. Catechumens are taught one on one by a priest who tailors the teachings to what is a appropriate to the catechumen. In this sense, then, my catechumenate almost certainly followed a different course to the way it would have had I converted from the RCC - the issues for a Protestant and Roman Catholic are obviously different (not that I'm saying you don't do something similar - I have no knowledge of how RC catechumenates go - just that we've never seen a reason for a one size fits all catechism). Of course, many local churches have come up with their own catechisms to help in this process (particularly since the diaspora have started coming into contact with numbers of RC enquirers, who expect such a document). Here's a link to one from a Romanian parish in the US:

http://orthodoxcatechism.org/

Hope that helps.

James

 

[Quiddity]

Victor,

You're right that there is no official catechism as there is for the RCC - you may have noticed that we don't like totry and define every little detail. Generally speaking our catechisms are personal. Catechumens are taught one on one by a priest who tailors the teachings to what is a appropriate to the catechumen. In this sense, then, my catechumenate almost certainly followed a different course to the way it would have had I converted from the RCC - the issues for a Protestant and Roman Catholic are obviously different (not that I'm saying you don't do something similar - I have no knowledge of how RC catechumenates go - just that we've never seen a reason for a one size fits all catechism). Of course, many local churches have come up with their own catechisms to help in this process (particularly since the diaspora have started coming into contact with numbers of RC enquirers, who expect such a document). Here's a link to one from a Romanian parish in the US:

http://orthodoxcatechism.org/

Hope that helps.

James

Thanks James. The process may not be that different. The one on one is something they also do in the RC. I am convert from Protestantism and I do remember the Priest and Religious Education Director both interviewed me and guided me thru the process. You are right about the one-size fits all, but I hope you don't think that is what the RC is endorsing. Even though we have a monolithic Cathecism, it still may need explaining from the Church.

Thanks again

~Victor

 

[Scott1]

Whichever Church is right, this refusal to compromise is correct for that Church. For true reunion to occur then, one of us must admit that we have erred and back down. Would you not agree with this?

I do agree.

Why do you seem to be unable to respect this viewpoint?

I most certainly do respect it as your right as a free human being to make a choice... but I have little respect for error... please understand the difference.

I started my catechumenate some 5 years ago now and have been fully Orthodox for 4. Surely this is long enough for you to cease thinking of me as a recent convert?

The time frame for your conversion is not relevant to my views... your Patriarch can be a heretic (as is one if I believe what I am reading)... why should I hold you to a higher standard?

You seem to be deliberately trying to cast us in a negative light so as to blame the entire Schism and its continuing existence upon us and us alone. If this is indeed your intention then I shall cease to reply to your posts further.

My reasons for casting EO theology in a "negative light" have nothing to do with "blame" about the Schism... I, unlike you, view the Schism as the result of error on BOTH sides... and that BOTH Churches are equally to "blame".

What it boils down to James is truth:

You have been tought by fallible teachers

.................................................... a fallible theology

............................................................................ that is led by fallible leaders.

My dear brother in Christ, TRUTH IS INFALLIBLE.

Peace in Christ,
Scott

 

[ted1234]

Wow, that just speaks volumes to me.

 

[ChrisP]

You have been tought by fallible teachers

.................................................... a fallible theology

............................................................................ that is led by fallible leaders.

My dear brother in Christ, TRUTH IS INFALLIBLE.

Peace in Christ,
Scott

I couldn't agree more. The Catholic hierarchy is all well and good, but I really believe that all Christians should study their bible and rely solely upon that. It is the ONE AND ONLY word of God after all. :162:

 

[James the Persian]

Scott,

You are becoming progressively more arrogant and confrontational. What's wrong with you, you used to be so reasonable?

I do agree.
I most certainly do respect it as your right as a free human being to make a choice... but I have little respect for error... please understand the difference.

Then please point out my error to me rather than attacking me with ad hominems. If the error you are referring to is my rejection of post-Schism RC teachings then, I'm afraid, we'll have to agree to disagree, but I am willing to do that whereas you seem only interested in baiting me. Recently you even cease to have bothered answering my questions.

The time frame for your conversion is not relevant to my views... your Patriarch can be a heretic (as is one if I believe what I am reading)... why should I hold you to a higher standard?

I'm sorry, but this is disingenuous claptrap. You, not I, brought up my 'newfound' Church, which was clearly an implication that if I just lasted a bit longer I'd have a Damascus moment and see the error of Orthodoxy. In actual fact, your posts merely reinforce my view that Roman Catholicism is the error. I have also never said the EP (who is not my Patriarch) was a heretic. I do not believe he is. I did say that some Orthodox have viewed him as preaching heresy, but not once did I say I agreed. You appear to be deliberately misrepresenting me.

My reasons for casting EO theology in a "negative light" have nothing to do with "blame" about the Schism... I, unlike you, view the Schism as the result of error on BOTH sides... and that BOTH Churches are equally to "blame".

What it boils down to James is truth:

You have been tought by fallible teachers

.................................................... a fallible theology

............................................................................ that is led by fallible leaders.

My dear brother in Christ, TRUTH IS INFALLIBLE.

As to your points in blue, I can say precisely the same things of the RCC. From our point of view they are no less true even if you wish to deny them. You're quite right that the Truth is infallible, but it is the Church that is the pillar and ground of the Truth, not individual heirarchs. We are taught infallible theology by an infallible Church regardless of how many individuals have gone astray. Your theology, in contrast, seems to stand or fall with those individuals and their innovations.

As to your reason for casting us (and not just our theology, I might add) in a negative light, please stop misrepresenting my views. I have never once said I lay all the blame at the door of the Roman Church. I see more errors on your side, it is true (but how could it not be when I see certain of your teachings as heresy), but to go from that to saying that I lay all blame on your side is unsustainable. Do you honestly think that your attitude is one that would foster unity? The only kind of unity such an attitude would seem to promote would be a unity of domination such as that of the Unia of Brest-Litovsk. You just go to show that, for all your previous nice words, you view unity as the Roman Catholicisation of us 'poor heretics'. I have never been anything but honest about the fact that for us reunion would require Rome returning to the Orthodox faith. Now I can see that your previous sentiments were nothing more than superficial attempts to placate us, I can at least say that we agree on this - but I would also say that reunion is immensely far into the future barring intervention by God.

I will only reply to your posts in future to defend myself and my Church against your attacks as it is clear that you are really not interested in having a genuine discussion of our issues. Thankfully not all the Roman Catholics here display your recent attitude.

James

 

[ted1234]

I think James hit the nail on the head. When chatting with Roman Catholics, either on forums such as this one, or in an online chat, how many times have I been told (by some, not all, and I surely don't blame them for saying it) that Eastern Orthodox aren't "interested" in union, because I tell them that if there is to be union, the one side in error will have to reject their innovations to the Truth, and in humility come to the correct keeper of the faith. I, as an Eastern Orthodox, agree with James, that that keeper of the faith "once delivered to the saints" is the Orthodox Church. However, Scott, when you can speak in this light, that "spoke volumes to me" as I earlier posted, I only have one question. How do these certain Roman Catholics criticize the Orthodox for not being interested in unity, when they hold a position that the Roman Catholics themselves oppose. Do we show interest in unity when we are willing to accept post-Gregorian, and post-Trentine, and Post-Vatican I and II theology and teachings? To quote St. Photios the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople, "To speak truth is the greatest charity". When we give you our beliefs, why is this constantly misconstrued as an anti-Catholic sentiment. We are against the additions of the Roman Catholic Church, to this there is no doubt, be we are not against all Roman Catholics. I have plenty of Roman Catholic friends, and I have great conversations with them. I have no doubt that they sincerely love Christ, I have no doubt that they are truly seeking and finding their salvation. Are they finding it in the historic Church however? No, they are not. This is what I believe. And truly, this is what you believe about Roman Catholicism. It is however, unfair, upon realizing that we have the same stance on the issue, to say Roman Catholics are more interested in unity then Orthodox. Truly, I agree with James. They are interested in bringing Eastern Orthodoxy under Papal subjugation, and not reassessing whether this doctrinal development is legitimate or not. I think that if my online friends tell me again that Orthodox are not "really interested in unity", that I'll be giving them the link to this post. Truly, it speaks volumes.

The least in Christ Jesus, our Lord,
Ted

 

[ted1234]

Just a little correction, I meant to say that Catholics propose the same thing, not "oppose" it. Wrong word, sorry

Ted

 

[Scott1]

You are becoming progressively more arrogant and confrontational. What's wrong with you, you used to be so reasonable?

I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to name calling... that I now have decided to speak my mind and point out what I believe are grave errors in the EO faith today somehow makes me less "reasonable".... hehe, claptrap indeed.

In actual fact, your posts merely reinforce my view that Roman Catholicism is the error. I have also never said the EP (who is not my Patriarch) was a heretic. I do not believe he is. I did say that some Orthodox have viewed him as preaching heresy, but not once did I say I agreed. You appear to be deliberately misrepresenting me.

Thanks for clearing this up for me....

We are taught infallible theology by an infallible Church regardless of how many individuals have gone astray.

This is where we disagree.. but it seems that any further discussion about this on my part will be met with the charge of being "arrogant and confrontational" so I will pass.

Do you honestly think that your attitude is one that would foster unity?

Very much so.... it happened to me.... I had someone ask me to look at the world without personal blinders on and it led me home.... I wanted a Church that was relevant in this century.... I wanted a Church that was not stagnant and waiting for their flock to fall into heresy so they could then, and only then, leap into action... it works for me, and not for you... so be it.... my previous attempts to get EO members to look at what we have in common and what unites us, were usually met with attacks on RCC theology.... so be it.... you've tought me a great deal James, and for that I am thankful... I now know that our two faiths are farther apart than I ever feared.... and we will both continue to pray for unity in our own ways.

In Christ,
Scott

 

[Scott1]

How do these certain Roman Catholics criticize the Orthodox for not being interested in unity, when they hold a position that the Roman Catholics themselves oppose.

Ted... I entrust our unity to the power of the Holy Spirit... I do not criticize you or anyone of your faith for not being interested in unity... If I have done so in the past, I beg your pardon.

Clear enough?
Scott

 

[James the Persian]

Ted... I entrust our unity to the power of the Holy Spirit... I do not criticize you or anyone of your faith for not being interested in unity... If I have done so in the past, I beg your pardon.

Clear enough?
Scott

But you have, Scott. Obliquely, to be sure, but you most certainly have implied that I am opposed to unity which is why I had to go into the whole long explanation that I was merely trying to be honest. I fail to see how you can have missed this.

And incidentally, saying that you have recently become more arrogant and confrontational is not 'name calling'. I called you no names whatsoever. I merely pointed out that your attitude, as recently evidenced in your posts, has changed. The way it has changed appears to me to evidence arrogance and confrontationalism on your part, in that you have started crowing in a most triumphalistic manner about the RCC and have begun deliberately baiting me. I believe the phrase you used was that this was 'for effect'. Please don't try to pretend that my comments were not a justifiable response to your recent posts. I can agree to disagree with you and you know as well as anyone that I am only too happy to support RCs here when our positions coincide, but I cannot tolerate your recent attitude in posts to me.

And, no matter what you say, your recent attitude is one that would drive us further apart rather than foster unity. Do you really believe that after nearly 1000 years resisting Rome's attempts to persuade and/or conquer us into union with her, we will capitulate and see the error of our ways if you merely attack us vociferously enough? Give me a break.

James

 

[Scott1]

James,

I'm sorry that you seem so upset by my posts... I still love and respect you and your faith (personal and in general)... but I have given up trying to "sugarcoat" my feelings about our Schism... I am sorry that you feel this begets a description of a "vociferous attack", but I can't change how you feel.

Just know that I continue to enjoy our chats and I will continue to look to you as a friend and as a brother catholic.

In His service,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

Thank you James. This is all I have been bickering about. Extend charity, even if you are right. This goes for me as well.

Peace be with you
~Victor

I pray that this become a reality more daily throughtout everyones life.

Holy Mother pray for us,
~Victor

 

[James the Persian]

James,

I'm sorry that you seem so upset by my posts... I still love and respect you and your faith (personal and in general)... but I have given up trying to "sugarcoat" my feelings about our Schism... I am sorry that you feel this begets a description of a "vociferous attack", but I can't change how you feel.

Just know that I continue to enjoy our chats and I will continue to look to you as a friend and as a brother catholic.

In His service,
Scott

OK Scott,

Lets just put this behind us then. I have never tried to sugar coat the Schism, which has lead to some conflicts with RCs at times, so I can understand your unwillingness to do so, even if I disagree with your perspective on things. It's not that that I objected to - I'm used to that from most RCs I correspond with - but the triumphalistic attitude (which most certainly was not warranted in the context of that post) and the fact that you admitted you were, in effect, trying to wind me up. That seemed out of character for you and was rather unpleasant - likewise your mischaracterisation of me as a recent convert afflicted by zealotry. If I have ever done similar in the heat of the moment (and I admit this is a possibility), then I apologise. I, too, respect your faith and have enjoyed our conversations. If you had always acted as you did in posting your recent replies to me I doubt I would have been so upset, but given that we have had disagreements in the past and have always managed to remain amicable about them, they came as quite a shock. Forgive me if I have done anything to offend you and I will do the same.

James