FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

(06-09-2019, 02:32 AM)Athens Wrote: [ -> ]Yablabo, thanks for the reply.             1. I can appreciate the fact that these dogmas are defined ex cathedra (although I may return to that topic later), but my question is why did it have to be defined ex cathedra (thus made into dogma) when the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary has nothing to do with our salvation. What we believe about there being one God or Jesus being the Godman or Mary being called Theotokos (since it confirms the Incarnation) or even icons all have to do with what we believe about God and so is essential to our salvation. But the Immaculate Conception is just about Mary herself, so I fail to see why it should be considered dogma. I still am not quite sure why the Pope is considered the successor of Peter. In Orthodoxy all the bishops are considered the successors of Peter (even though they too consider the Pope to be Peter's successor "in a special sense," to quote Met. Kallistos Ware).                                                                                                  2. I heard one Eastern Catholic priest say that Eastern Catholic Christians, when confronted with Papal doctrines "can't say that it's wrong or heretical." But they can say things like "that's not part of our patrimony" or we use different theological language to get at the same truth. What I get from that is a bit of a neutral attitude toward Papal dogmas. Is this permissible?                                                        3.That was a novelty that came to the forefront at around 1054? May I ask for some sources, because the Orthodox say exactly the opposite. Thanks.

1) It was not "made into" a dogma.  The Immaculate Conception was divinely revealed, i.e., woven into the seamless garment of the deposit of faith.  When the Roman Pontiff made his solemn judgment on the Immaculate Conception, he was not drawing from the ethers, but rather showing that scripture and tradition contained this revelation, and that apostolic teaching had echoed it through the ages. 

If you are interested in delving into papal primacy and the papal charism in defining doctrines concerning faith and morals, the First Vatican Council gives the best exposition into the apostolic history and doctrine.

2) No, it's not permissible to remain neutral to the concepts defined ex cathedra by the Roman Pontiff.  This is part of what our separated brethren in the eastern communion miss out on:

We can have different expressions and terminology due to the differences in language, like calling the mother of the divine Redeemer our Blessed Mother in the West or Theotokos in the East.  What we can't have is contrary concepts of the truth.  Even if we use different semantics, the underlying concepts must be catholic.  The safest way is to use the same words, but often this is not possible due to the philosophical lacking of different human languages.

For example, if the Latins profess that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, and if the Greeks profess that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, they must mean the same concept, or one is not catholic. 

What is truly orthodox does not diverge from what is catholic.  This shows the problem with calling our separated brethren in the East by the name "Eastern Orthodox."  Our separated brethren in the East sadly do not hold fast to the foundations of dogma, but instead have built an alternate institution based upon Byzantine courtly etiquette, holding firmly in their disciplines, preserving the holy orders, but developing a divergent and deformed body of doctrine from a headless college of bishops.  The correct name for this communion would be Eastern Orthoprax.  Orthopraxia in place of orthodoxia.

Ultimately we must all assent to the same concepts in order to call our communion universal/catholic, and we must have the rule of the true faith to call ourselves orthodox.

3) Basically, there is a professor (Thomas Madden) from St. Louis University who did in depth studies on the origins of Christianity (both Eastern and Western) and wrote several good courses.  I would recommend checking out his courses here:

https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=thomas+madden&ref=a_search_t1_header_search

He is not authoritative, but he will give you a mostly unbiased history of the Christian religion.  From there, you can look up the specific information you hear to confirm or refute it.  I suggest starting out with "Upon this Rock", "From Jesus to Christianity", and "Empire of Gold".  I listened to all his courses while working in a machine shop, so they're pretty easy to follow along.

From what I've found, sadly, most of our separated brethren in the East will not look at the historical record, but rather grasp onto what their bishops and priests tell them, even when it contradicts what they can see with their eyes.

All the best to you.

You can also check out what the Eastern Fathers actually said about Papal Primacy here on the main site.

Below are writings of the early Church Fathers of the Eastern part of the Catholic Church -- all of whom supported the primacy of the Petrine Ministry.

MagisterMusicae, rejecting any of the older dogmas (divinity/humanity of Christ, the title 'Theotokos' for Mary, etc) puts human salvation at risk because it darkness man's understanding of God and creates a barrier between man and God. So these doctrines becoming dogmas makes sense. Would rejecting the teaching of the Immaculate Conception put man's salvation at risk by darkening our understanding of God in some way? If so, how?                                              When I said every bishop is the successor of Peter, I didnt just mean Patriarchs. Every local bishop surrounded by his people celebrating the Eucharist is the successor of Peter. The Orthodox believe the word (or claim) 'catholic' means 'according to the whole,' rather than universal. They think this following the tradition of St. Ignatius of Antioch who first used the word to refer to the church. Every bishop, as the head of every local church, is the successor of St. Peter (though not geographically). The book 'His Broken Body' by Laurent Cleenewerck (Orthodox priest) explains it nicely.                                                                                          So, If Peter founded two Sees, why does Rome, rather than Antioch, get primacy?                                                                                                                 And I'll have to chew on what you said about the Immaculate Conception for a while. It seems a bit far fetched to me.                                                                                          Hi, Melkite. I'm just in the beginning stages of considering this. I haven't even visited a church, yet. I've just been looking up a bit of info here and there. No, I'm not Antiochian Orthodox, I'm OCA. Is that problematic considering which Eastern Catholic church I attend?                                                                      Yablabo, whatever you say. Made into a dogma or divinely revealed, the result is the same. I'm not here to argue semantics.                                                                                       You said, "From what I've found, sadly, most of our separated brethren in the East will not look at the historical record but rather grasp onto what their bishops and priests tell them, even when it contradicts what they can see with their eyes." That is exactly what I've found to be true in the western churches. Whether they're Protestant "The inerrant Bible says..." or Catholic "It has been infallibly defined..." it amounts to the same thing and it's hard to get good conversation going. And if we do get good conversation going, someone gets offended. My reason for being here is because it's been hard for me to get a straight answer from other Catholics. I am an Orthodox convert from an evangelical protestant background. And there was a guy at our church who was a Catholic monk and he converted because of books he read in his monastery. So, for people like me and my church (mostly converts) it's certainly not like that. The historical record matters. Anyway, thanks for the info.

(06-09-2019, 09:42 PM)Athens Wrote: [ -> ]No, I'm not Antiochian Orthodox, I'm OCA. Is that problematic considering which Eastern Catholic church I attend?                                                                      

If you are received from the OCA, I would assume that you will be Russian Rite , just as I became Serbian Rite when I was received from Serbian Orthodoxy' However, that has no impact on which Rite you can attend. You can fulfil your obligation in any Catholic Rite.

(06-09-2019, 09:41 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]You can also check out what the Eastern Fathers actually said about Papal Primacy here on the main site.

Below are writings of the early Church Fathers of the Eastern part of the Catholic Church -- all of whom supported the primacy of the Petrine Ministry.

I just read a book on the Early Papacy to Chalcedon by Adrian Fortescue.  He establishes Primacy pretty well, but everywhere I read the Early Church looks like Primacy, not the Supremacy we have today.

The Pope often used as a final court of appeal, but not like we have today.

And the one question I still wonder out lout on Infallibility is if it was understood in the first 1000 years why bother having all those councils where people had to travel so far, when travel was difficult and slow?

(06-09-2019, 09:42 PM)Athens Wrote: [ -> ]                                                                    Yablabo, whatever you say. Made into a dogma or divinely revealed, the result is the same. I'm not here to argue semantics.                                                                                       You said, "From what I've found, sadly, most of our separated brethren in the East will not look at the historical record but rather grasp onto what their bishops and priests tell them, even when it contradicts what they can see with their eyes." That is exactly what I've found to be true in the western churches. Whether they're Protestant "The inerrant Bible says..." or Catholic "It has been infallibly defined..." it amounts to the same thing and it's hard to get good conversation going. And if we do get good conversation going, someone gets offended. My reason for being here is because it's been hard for me to get a straight answer from other Catholics. I am an Orthodox convert from an evangelical protestant background. And there was a guy at our church who was a Catholic monk and he converted because of books he read in his monastery. So, for people like me and my church (mostly converts) it's certainly not like that. The historical record matters. Anyway, thanks for the info.

Athens,

I think you're missing what I'm getting at.  The Immaculate Conception was divinely revealed, as in, part of the divine deposit which was sealed at the death of the Apostle St. John in 100 AD.

That was all Pope Pius IX was saying.  That is what ex cathedra is about.  Not making something new known as if divine revelation were adding to the deposit of faith, but judging what belongs and what doesn't.

The church only refers to things as "infallibly defined" as a means of saying that all discussion and debate has ended on a topic, not that some addition has been made to the body of the faith.

The church has ALWAYS gone to the Roman Pontiff to settle such things.  It is simply that our separated brethren in the East cut off this part of their patrimony when they went their separate way.  Now generations are not raised up in the knowledge of why the Roman Pontiff is different from the rest of the Patriarchs.

It is the exact same in the West.  People are raised up with the community esteem of papal primacy and the unique character of the Holy See, and are not actually taught what it is all about.  So you get ignorant statements like, "The pope made a dogma," "The pope has only used ex cathedra twice," etc.  It makes the conversation impossible.

I feel for you.  I was in a similar situation to you about 11 years ago when I was clawing back from my excommunication.  The First Vatican Council is really the place to start reading as it gives the information you're seeking in an authoritative fashion, and it takes only about 45 mins to read through the entirety.  It would probably be best to check it out, rather than read what people paraphrase that it contains.

I wish you the best.

(06-09-2019, 09:42 PM)Athens Wrote: [ -> ]                                                                                    Hi, Melkite. I'm just in the beginning stages of considering this. I haven't even visited a church, yet. I've just been looking up a bit of info here and there. No, I'm not Antiochian Orthodox, I'm OCA. Is that problematic considering which Eastern Catholic church I attend?                                                                     

I was just interested if you just happened to be close to a Melkite parish or if you were specifically looking for a Melkite parish.  To add to what Jovan already said, whichever Orthodox church you are coming from, upon conversion to the Catholic Church, you automatically become a member of the counterpart church.  Antiochian-Melkite, Russian-Russian, Ukrainian-Ukrainian, etc.  With OCA, I'm not sure how that would work, as it is sort of Russian Orthodox but also has a large former Ruthenian Catholic component.  Regardless, that's just for canonical purposes.  As Jovan said, you're free to go to whichever church you want to.

(06-10-2019, 06:36 AM)Markie Boy Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2019, 09:41 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]You can also check out what the Eastern Fathers actually said about Papal Primacy here on the main site.

Below are writings of the early Church Fathers of the Eastern part of the Catholic Church -- all of whom supported the primacy of the Petrine Ministry.

I just read a book on the Early Papacy to Chalcedon by Adrian Fortescue.  He establishes Primacy pretty well, but everywhere I read the Early Church looks like Primacy, not the Supremacy we have today.

The Pope often used as a final court of appeal, but not like we have today.

And the one question I still wonder out lout on Infallibility is if it was understood in the first 1000 years why bother having all those councils where people had to travel so far, when travel was difficult and slow?

The Ecumenical Councils are tools used by the Roman Pontiff to make solemn judgments.  The Ecumenical Councils have no protection from error or whim or contradiction outside of the singular papal charism.  That is why everything always went to Rome for approval.  If the Roman Pontiff did not "sign off", then the church did not hold it as part of the everlasting record.  That's how it's been from the beginning of the Church.

(06-10-2019, 09:21 AM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]The Ecumenical Councils are tools used by the Roman Pontiff to make solemn judgments.  The Ecumenical Councils have no protection from error or whim or contradiction outside of the singular papal charism.  That is why everything always went to Rome for approval.  If the Roman Pontiff did not "sign off", then the church did not hold it as part of the everlasting record.  That's how it's been from the beginning of the Church.

This viewpoint is simply revisionist history.

(06-10-2019, 09:37 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2019, 09:21 AM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]The Ecumenical Councils are tools used by the Roman Pontiff to make solemn judgments.  The Ecumenical Councils have no protection from error or whim or contradiction outside of the singular papal charism.  That is why everything always went to Rome for approval.  If the Roman Pontiff did not "sign off", then the church did not hold it as part of the everlasting record.  That's how it's been from the beginning of the Church.

This viewpoint is simply revisionist history.

I understand your position.  It's a convenient position from which to defend the headless college of bishops in the East when they organize a synod.  However, it is not a position that the miracles surround the church illuminate, nor that history supports.  The actual historical record shows that in order for the acts of a council to have a universal character (oikoumenikos), the Roman Pontiff's approval for the acts of the council was required.  Nobody said he had to make a specific decree beyond having the acts promulgated.

I contend that it is amongst the errors of Russia referred to by the Theotokos at Fatima to countenance a diminished view of papal jurisdiction and thereby papal importance. 

Again, I can understand that this position comes from generations of distrust in the West and indoctrination in a different way of thinking, but that does not make it correct.