www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Protestants who convert to BC vs Orthodox

Ah, but as I pointed out elsewhere, papal infallibility was defined in 1869-70, while the Immaculate Conception was infallibly defined by the Pope in 1854.

So what happens now? Was the IC fallible, even though officially infallible, until Vatican I? Was there no need to define papal infallibility in 1870? What value did the 1854 declaration have? What's the story?

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Well according to Catholic Apologists, the Pope always had infalliabilty, he just defined the dogma at Vatican I. God Bless.

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!

Alex,

I still don't see how one can be both Eastern Orthodox and in communion with Rome. If you mean Orthodox meaning pre-Schism, then I can understand that. How can one be Methodist and Catholic at the same time? The two beliefs are incompatible. You can be Catholic using Methodist traditions, just like you can be Catholic with Eastern Orthodox traditios, but then those tradtitions would be incorporated into the Catholic tradition.

I concur with Dan that we have moved beyond the bounds of the original purpose of the thread. I was looking for personal testimonies of those who confronted these issues from the outside, how they made sense of them, how they placed them in perspective. I do have three points to make in an effort of conciliarity and to explain what I think it means to be Byzantine and Catholic.
In his book, Being as Communion, John Zizioulas, criticizes Vatican II ecclesiology. He didn't disagree with what wa stated but what was not. In his opinion, the documents of Vatican II correctly explain an ecclesiology based on Christology, The Roman persepctive, if you will. However, what was missing was the Pneumatological perspective, the Eastern perspective, if you will. However, he goes on to say that Orthodox theologians do not have an adequate formulation for this theology either! I suspect this will be the primary topic of discussion for "Vatican III.

In 1982, the Catholic-Orthodox Commission released the Munich statement:[/I]
[I]The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity. This document correctly points out the dimension of ecclesiology that has not been highlighted enough in this thread. Their point is that the Church is not a sociological phenomenon (i.e. of this world), but rather is "Jerusalem from on high... coming down from God." As a result, for me at least, Orthodoxy does not require the perfect ecclesial communion from a human perspective. But what is necessary from the human perspective is an attitude of continual repentence. Orthodoxy is not about jursidiction it is about attitude, one's attitude to the divine, one's attitude to his fellow man, and just as importantly, his attitude to himself.

In 1964 so as to commemmorate their meeting in Jerusalem, Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople presented Pope Paul VI an icon of the apostles (brothers mind you) Peter and Andrew in filial embrace. It may seem corny or even sentimental, but this icon more than anything best represents the Catholic Churches of the East, especially those of Byzantine derivation. It proclaims a theology that has yet to be adequately stated in words but a theology that is true, nonetheless.

Perhaps I am simple, but this is enough for me.

John

Dear Dan,

Thank you for observing:

"I wonder if some new threads should be spawned off of this one. We don't seem to be discussing conversion experiences any more.

Administrator, can you help?"

As moderator of East & West, perhaps I can save our esteemed moderator this duty? As this thread has become so large and has strayed so far, perhaps we can begin new threads on the various good questions raised here.

Please begin a new thread with a precise title, so that we will be able to follow this discussion in its various directions.

Elias


Dan Lauffer[/QB][/QUOTE]