BREAKING : Cardinal Burke calls for Consecration of Russia to IHOM
#31
(05-21-2017, 09:21 AM)Eric F Wrote:                                                             Before all the post V2 ecumenical madness, and before we had become such an embarrassment, the belief was that Our Lady of Fatima was calling for the conversion of Russia from Godless communism to the Catholic Church.

This is what I've always read. There was always a hope for reconciliation between Rome and the Orthodox, but the conversion was to get rid of communism.
Reply
#32
(05-20-2017, 11:19 AM)Pacman Wrote: Okay, but if you're interested in Catholic Apologetics you should know that quoting Matthew 16:18 as some kind of proof text for the dogma of Papal Infallibility doesn't really work

Good thing I'm Catholic, then, and don't go by sola Scriptura. :)

Either the Catholic Church is right about the authority of the Pope, in which case he has the authority to add to the Creed on his own, or the Orthodox are right, and he doesn't, being just one bishop among many. But if the Catholics are right, refusing to accept the supremacy of the Pope is schismatic. The Orthodox claim the Filioque is an issue, but it's not - the real issue is the authority of the Pope.
Reply
#33
                                                          A certain site has already locked a thread on this topic. Is this really that scary a subject that it can't be discussed ? Well it's nice that rational people can discuss it here.
Reply
#34
(05-21-2017, 07:51 PM)Paul Wrote:
(05-20-2017, 11:19 AM)Pacman Wrote: Okay, but if you're interested in Catholic Apologetics you should know that quoting Matthew 16:18 as some kind of proof text for the dogma of Papal Infallibility doesn't really work

Good thing I'm Catholic, then, and don't go by sola Scriptura. :)

Either the Catholic Church is right about the authority of the Pope, in which case he has the authority to add to the Creed on his own, or the Orthodox are right, and he doesn't, being just one bishop among many. But if the Catholics are right, refusing to accept the supremacy of the Pope is schismatic. The Orthodox claim the Filioque is an issue, but it's not - the real issue is the authority of the Pope.

Well, we can at least admit that there would be less chaos if Popes were bound to obey the canons of the ecumenical councils and were not tearing through everything like a law unto themselves. In the Eastern Orthodox Church the term 'canon' and 'dogma' are often synonymous, but in the Catholic Church canons are just a kind of weird administrative apparatus which popes have over-hauled completely whenever it suited them.
Reply
#35
(05-21-2017, 09:21 AM)Eric F Wrote:                                                             Before all the post V2 ecumenical madness, and before we had become such an embarrassment, the belief was that Our Lady of Fatima was calling for the conversion of Russia from Godless communism to the Catholic Church.
And to this day liberals push Marxist/Communist thought on the Western world. Communism may have fallen in Russia, but it's still alive and kicking and has penetrated the West more than during the Cold War it seems.
Reply
#36
(05-20-2017, 11:09 AM)Paul Wrote:
(05-20-2017, 06:56 AM)Pacman Wrote: The Bishops of Rome began adding the filioque into the Creed in the 11th century due to pressure from the Frankish potentates of the age. They did not have the authority to do this. The only way the filioque could have been licitly added was by convening a new Ecumenical Council to approve it.

The Pope certainly had the authority for this. Christ gave the keys to Peter, not to all the Apostles. The Filioque is not heretical, and no Council has authority over a Pope. What's in the Nicene Creed is dogmatic, but choosing what to include and what not to include isn't.

I realise the Orthodox don't accept the authority of the Pope over other bishops, or over an ecumenical council, but you know what the Church teaches about the Pope. And by rejecting the primacy of Rome, it makes the Orthodox schismatic. Yes, from their point of view, the Catholics are the schismatic ones, but this is a traditional Catholic forum. We're not going to treat what the Church teaches as just one point of view, or one option.

But look at this like an A/B Test: which administrative status quo has been more successful at maintaining the unchanging truth of Christ: the Catholic Church where the Pope has the authority to do anything he wants whenever he wants, or the Eastern Orthodox system where no one is above the canons of the Ecumenical Councils?

I think it is unambiguously true that for the purpose of preserving the ancient teachings of the Church, the Eastern Orthodox conciliar system has worked better. And you can see this also in the different theories on dogma. After Vatican II, the Catholic Church admitted that dogma develops over time and that new definitions are passed to develop dogma. But the Eastern Orthodox continues to maintain that the teachings of the Church never change and that the only purpose of new dogmatic definitions is to protect the unchanging truth of Christ.
Reply
#37
(05-22-2017, 07:19 AM)Pacman Wrote: But look at this like an A/B Test: which administrative status quo has been more successful at maintaining the unchanging truth of Christ: the Catholic Church where the Pope has the authority to do anything he wants whenever he wants, or the Eastern Orthodox system where no one is above the canons of the Ecumenical Councils?
The Pope does not have the authority "to do anything he wants whenever he wants."
Reply
#38
(05-22-2017, 07:31 AM)In His Love Wrote:
(05-22-2017, 07:19 AM)Pacman Wrote: But look at this like an A/B Test: which administrative status quo has been more successful at maintaining the unchanging truth of Christ: the Catholic Church where the Pope has the authority to do anything he wants whenever he wants, or the Eastern Orthodox system where no one is above the canons of the Ecumenical Councils?
The Pope does not have the authority "to do anything he wants whenever he wants."

The episode I referred to before involving Pope Leo III implies that the Pope has the authority to at any time ignore or change the canons of Ecumenical Councils. That may not imply total power, but it does mean that the Pope can do pretty much whatever he wants within reason.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)