I didn’t ask for just any council, I asked for Pan Orthodox councils
Jesus set up HIS model of HIS Church with Peter as the primary leader with all in complete union with Peter.
I didn’t ask for just any council, I asked for Pan Orthodox councils
Jesus set up HIS model of HIS Church with Peter as the primary leader with all in complete union with Peter.
With respect, I’ve said I’m done conversing with you. You appear to have no interest in considering the view of the Eastern Christian (Catholic or Orthodox) but would much rather speak as if the Church of Rome were triumphant over all and the only source of Christian dogma and doctrine. We are not going to come to agreement on anything. I see others bring up valid points which you ignore, while you doggedly insist that others respond to you. You have made a point to cherry-pick sources so as to say that I and my fellow Orthodox are condemned to hell for being schismatics, this despite your fellow Catholics strenuously disagreeing with your doing so. Save yourself the trouble and leave us be in our condemned state.
orthodox scource, for what it’s worth. I also found a book which mentions this: Eastern Orthodox Christianity: The Essential Texts, by Bryn Geffert, Theofanis G. Stavrou
I found many Catholic sources blaming Michael Cerularius for stepping on Eucharist with his “profane feet”. Whether he did it or not, Legates were surely sent to investigate this issue (as well as issue of him closing down all Churches that used unleavened bread for Eucharist). Michael however ignored them and did not receive Papal Legates. He would let them wait and then everything escalated with invalid excommunication bull. However, I would suggest that IF Patriarch Michael did step on Eucharist, he excommunicated himself.
Catholics do not contradict each other at all- infant limbo was a theory of some theologians, never a dogma and I dare say not even a majority view. Capital punishment? In what sense? We do not accept it’s use unless absolutely necessary and we believe in modern world it is never absolutely necessary. Easy. We use both bread forms, we don’t think our Savior only appears in one form of bread. It’s as saying Priest’s vestments can only be one color and every time he celebrates in other color he celebrates invalidly. Makes no sense, right? Filioque is TRUE, but does NOT need to be used by our Eastern brothers as they hold their own traditional and TRUE creed (Spirit proceeds from Father, and proceeds from Son. Filioque says second verse but even if you ommit it, it doesn’t say Spirit can’t proceed from Son). It’s simply as calling yourself “Orthodox Christian” but not saying “Orthodox Catholic Christian”. If you ommit “Catholic” in definition, are you still catholic at all? Inquisition using torture is a myth and torture to extract confession was declared against law by Pope. Blood was shed for all people, and there are many people in the world. What Saints in particular? Mark of Ephesus is a taboo but St. Photius was a great scholar who was, contrary to some myths, not as anti-papal as you would think. He was just kinda anti-latin. Everybody has some areas where he isn’t right- St. Cyprian went against baptizing infants too, and is Saint in Orthodoxy. St. Constantine is a Saint in Catholicism too. There is no reason to not venerate him.
steve is basically using Catholic Church definition of being Catholic. From Catholic viewpoint (which I would consider correct, but surely you wouldn’t), Orthodox Church is not Catholic as it is not united with Peter. It can be orthodox if it holds right beliefs (is not heretical) but is schismatic.
I would also point out that Catholic Church seems universal in it’s character, yet Orthodox Churches seem a bit national to me. Ecumenical Councils and synods that would involve more than couple of Churches would stop after 1054, because without Pope there is not enough unity to call Ecumenical Council. You can play the “we just had no need to define anything” card, but nature of Eucharist was defined by Orthodox, so was Palamite theology but never in Ecumenical Council. Protestant reformation, atheism and indifference to religion were/are all huge problems. If those did not need attention of Church, I do not see how would any other heresy (such as nestorianism or monophysitism) need it either.
You aren’t condemned to hell, in-fact I do not believe anyone is condemned to hell for being Orthodox- but we believe you are missing out from fullness of the Church. Orthodox viewpoint seems to be contrary to ours, but as sources I saw would imply, we, Catholics, are not considered even remotely united to Orthodox Church. I don’t doubt several Orthodox bishops have several different opinions- as with practically anything. Doctrinal issues in Orthodoxy are present- I can think of re-baptizing Catholic converts in some Autocephalous Churches yet not doing so in others, accepting Catholic Holy Orders via vesting and not accepting them at all in others. Orthodoxy seems to be divided on many things and disputes over jurisdiction (Jerusalem-Antioch, Ukraine-Russia) seem to be prevalent. Pope would solve many of those problems, so would Ecumenical Council.
Oh, and Latin viewpoint is same as Orthodox one- particular Churches make up One United Church. We are simply united by more than faith, we are united by something that keeps this faith clean from heresy and solves problems of authority between particular Churches- Pope.
Then you disagree with the New Catholic Encyclopedia (green books). Look up torture and you will see that Pope Innocent IV allowed torture (under certain limited conditions) with the papal bull Ad Extirpanda.
Did Jesus use leavened bread or unleavened bread at the Last Supper or did He use both?
Then why was it taught in the Baltimore Catechism? It was taught then, but not now.
Dr. Carrol wrote: “Emperor Constantine was indeed a devoted and devout man, and is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Church. But he is not so recognized by the Catholic Church, probably because he deferred baptism until his deathbed (a widespread and very unfortunate practice in his time) and because he killed his son Crispus and his wife Fausta for no good reason…”
“These sad facts are solidly established. My authorities are as folloes: John Holland Smith, CONSTANTINE THE GREAT (1971), pp. 204-216; G. P. Baker, CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND THE CHRISTIAN REVOLUTION (1931), pp. 243-257; Lloyd Holsapple, CONATANTINE THE GREAT (1941), pp. 285-301. Eastern Catholics honor Constantine as a saint, but Western (Latin rite) Catholics do not. - Dr. Carroll”
And is St. Photios considered to be a saint of the Universal Catholic Church even though the Pope has not elevated him to that status?
"St. Photios was canonized by the Eastern Church prior to the schism of 1054. In the ancient Church it was the custom for each local Church to canonize their own saints. Today, it is the practice of the Catholic Church for each saint to be canonized directly by the Roman Pontiff. Only those saints canonized directly by the Pope are considered worthy of universal veneration.
Thus, St. Photios would be considered a local saint specific to the Byzantine Church. He would not be considered a saint of the Universal Church, unless the Pope were to elevate him to this status."
Do Melkite Catholics accept Mark of Ephesus as a saint? I heard that there were some Melkite Catholic Churches that include his icon? However, I have not checked it.
None are supposed to . . . but then again, while EC and EO both decline to make the distinction, both have plenty of writings on the difference, too . . . and we’re not bothered by this, either . . . (Maybe I should print up buttons that say, “It’s an Eastern thing: you wouldn’t understand!” )
AFAIK, the only folks who say “all” are those locked into a mistranslation from the Vulgate, which uses “multis” (sp?). All are called, and could be among the “many”, but . . .
Limbo is not and never was a teaching of the Roman church, notwithstanding the centuries of pious nuns who miscatechised their charges with it. (It comes from Augustines note in the “limbus”–margin–of his writings).
That probably depends upon whether +John or the synoptics have the day right . . .
Limbo was taught in the Baltimore catechism. And from the following it seems it was taught by His Holiness Pope Pius XII. Pope Pius XII in his address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (Oct. 29, 1951) said : “If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open…”
I thought it was the bishops and not the nuns who authorised the widespread use of the Baltimore catechism in the USA.
It is difficult to believe that Roman Catholic latin scholars were unable to translate simple words such as pro multis into correct English.
did Jesus speak Greek or Church Slavonic, or any other language? Same way we alternate languages, we can use both bread forms. Early Church used both bread forms anyway. Whether Jesus used unleavened or leavened form of bread is disputed by many scholars, while bible uses word commonly used for leavened bread, it would sometimes be also used for leavened bread. Pascha’s relation to bread also plays role, but in the end liturgically He never forbid unleavened bread and neither did Church ever (Ecumenical Councils nor Popes). Greek Bishops during Council of Florence did not object to unleavened bread use- they simply objected to Filioque and nature of Purgatorial Fires (and Mark of Ephesus won this argument therefore we follow his opinion on the matter), and Papal Supremacy.
Not sure about limbo, all I know is that it was never a dogma. It was a theory, or rather a parable.
Popes do not elavate Saints- God does. Popes merely acknowledge them, but not only Popes. Popes merely reserved the right for themselves to prevent some scandalous manipulations by nobles in middle ages. Eastern Catholics can recognize their own saints, but Church of Rome/Latin Church (headed by Pope) recognizes their own- or rather, we recognize God’s saints and honor them whichever Church recognized them. We simply have no Latin feast days for Photius. I don’t think there are Mark of Ephesus icons in Melkite Church but I might be wrong. There has been discussion about that on forums before and it was mostly established that no one can find anything that would suggest Melkites honoring him. I for example honor St. Constantine. I do not agree with the way he handled his baptism but we all recognize his great contributions to Universal Church. Again, however, we lack a Feast day for St. Constantine. Saints are useful for us to be taken as examples and Latin Church would not take example from Constantine therefore honoring him wasn’t as common as in East, but his sainthood wasn’t contested.
Interesting, as far as I understand it, Pope would allow torture under certain limited conditions if necessary, but not encourage it. Was ever confession under torture a proof? I seriously doubt it was based on what I’ve read but I might be wrong there.
The towns in Galilee where Jesus spent a lot of time were Aramaic speaking communities. So it is most likely that Jesus spoke Aramaic.
AFAIK, Church Slavonic dates from the ninth century AD, so No, I don’t believe that Jesus spoke Church Slavonic.
I didn’t know about that. I thought it was the Church which gave official recognition that a person was in heaven and that he many be publicly invoked and venerated after the process of canonization.
What I meant by first language parable was that whether Jesus used leavened or unleavened bread, both are valid- same as with language. Jesus used aramaic yet we have liturgies in all sorts of languages.
Church gives official recognition that a person is in Heaven, yes. However we do not know everyone who is in Heaven. Private devotions to certain saints start at local level until they are universal, it’s just that Pope either doesn’t mind, makes it official or forbids it in rare case. Magisterium simply works to protect us from making false conclusions.
Join us Roman Catholics! We need more players on our team!
From the Catholic perspective (at least according to the Catechism), the Catholic Church is the bough, the first major branch the Orthodox Churches and then you’ve got lots of other branches that continue to branch out in countless directions that are Protestant.
The Orthodox view is that the Orthodox Church is the one true faith. They don’t view other Christian denominations as the Church. At the same time, in my limited exploration of Orthodoxy, there is a view that seems more in line with Christ being the Divine Logos. That is to say, that people can encounter God’s Word in their prayer life without identifying Him as Jesus or tying it into Christianity.
Now, I’m not sure if this is actually the view of all Orthodox churches. There are divisions within Orthodoxy too, and different groupings that disagree with each other as to who is in unity with each other. I don’t fully understand it to explain it beyond that.
The more I’ve explored it, the more my view of the Church has stayed and the more conviction I have to remaining Catholic. The way I see it, Christ is the bough and we are the branches. Christianity segments out into multiple branches, and we each grow from these branches. How well we grow spiritually depends on how well nourished that branch is. How much grace is flowing from it?
Now Christ said the first will be last and the last will be first. He also says that the spiritually poor are blessed. So in some ways, those who tap into grace while having been rather far away…and spiritually poor . . . are the type that appreciates grace the most. Whereas, those who have lots of grace often take it for granted. Spiritual vanity gets in the way and they often turn their backs to Christ, grace bouncing off them like water on a ducks back by looking at others to judge them.
I’m Catholic because I believe in the sacraments and because I don’t believe that I need to reject the Catholic Church and limit myself to Orthodox churches (of which there are fewer in the US) to get that grace. But I think the western Church needs to humbly listen to the eastern churches. I don’t believe that there’s any branch that replaces Christ. But I long for the Eucharist and the sacramental life of the Church, and while I get fed up with some other things in the Church, I still acknowledge if I wanted to attend a better liturgy, I could get up early and travel an hour to an eastern Mass. Instead, I go to the local Catholic parish nearby because its easier to get to.
Jesus used unleavened bread
Please read, Ex 12:14-20 Re: the insistence of unleavened bread
Lk 22: (Emphasis mine)
7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus[a] sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it.” 9 They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” 10 He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him into the house which he enters, 11 and tell the householder, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the passover with my disciples?’ 12 And he will show you a large upper room furnished; there make ready.” 13 And they went, and found it as he had told them; and they prepared the passover.
The Institution of the Lord’s Supper
14 And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you I shall not eat it[b] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[c] 21 But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of man goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” 23 And they began to question one another, which of them it was that would do this.
Who is the Passover lamb? Jesus. When was the Last Supper? Thurs Eve which was Friday in Jewish understanding… It (the Last Supper) was a Passover meal, therefore, Jesus used unleavened bread for the Eucharist
Is it all right to use leavened bread for the Mass, even if Jesus used unleavened bread?
Yes. Most of the Eastern Churches use leavened bread and have for much of history.
If it is OK to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Mass, why did the Catholic Church excommunicated Michael Cerularius and list one of the reasons for the excommunication that he used leavened bread for the Mass?
The history of the split with Orthodoxy is messy, political, and at times ridiculous. The mutual excommunication in 1054 is actually a prime example of that. It was one big, nasty comedy of errors from start to finish.
What bread is used at Mass is not a doctrinal matter, but disciplinary. If there were a problem with using leavened bread, why do you think it’s still allowed in the Eastern Catholic churches today?
Catholic Church never did- excommunication was invalid according to canon law
Because the Catholic Church changed its teaching from what it was in 1054 to what it is today. In 1054, they listed the insistence on the use of leavened bread as a reason for excommunication, No?