www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News "Luther" movie

Alex,

Nice to see hear from you too.

Joe

And there is no such thing as a Catholic Church though many attempt to define Latin Catholicism with the all-embracing, one and only, superior, primary, generic Catholic Church. One is either Latin Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Armenian Catholic, etc. There are 20+ particular Churches in the Catholic Communion.

On the subject of doctrinal discipline, I was briefly a member of the ultra-conservative Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and I can tell you from personal experience, that they are one Lutheran body that is quite rigid in their doctrinal beliefs (church fellowship in particular) Upon joining, I had to promise to never pray with anyone outside the fellowship of the WELS (only one other church, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod is in fellowship) And of course, my local pastor, prior to admitting me as a member, made very sure I agreed with all the church's teachings.

As a side note, it was interesting to observe how the majority of WELS pastors viewed Martin Luther. They didn't think he was quite infallible, just that, they didn't think he was ever wrong about anything.

At least now that your heresies are out in the open, we can get somewhere . . .

Slava Isusu Christu!

PaxTecvm:

It's definitely more of a tone in Mr. Armstrong's writings than anything. But, if you want examples, here's one. I would point you to this article by Mr. Armstrong On "Western" Philosophy [ic.net] . In it, he states

As an Eastern Catholic, I do not believe in the Augustinian notion that we inherit an original "guilt" due to Original Sin. Yet I guarantee you that Mr. Armstrong would go so far to tell me I'm not "fully Catholic" because I don't adhere to his Augustinian concepts of Original Sin.

Truth can be easily, very easily skewed one way or the other, oftentimes involuntary, and one point of view is emphasized over another. That's the whole reason we have the Schism between East and West to begin with. Personally, I find Mr. Armstrong's zeal admirable but his method of arguing to be extremely polemical and counter-productive. His little sarcastic comments here and there and his feeble attempts at humor amidst supposedly serious theological debates will keep him on the fringe of Catholic apologetics. He also has an inflated ego, exemplified by his challenges to various other Christian apologists to debate the Biblical foundations of (Western) Catholicism and his subsequent chest beating when the other party declines his invitation. I think Mr. Armstrong consistenly misses the forest through the trees and forgets that it is far, far more important to live LIVE Christianity than it is to debate it with fellow Christians.

With the good Dr. Roman, I pray that perhaps Mr. Armstrong will "get over it" someday.

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear PaxTecum,

First of all, cut the "Bull Crap." We don't use such foul language on a Catholic board.

And you quote the Catholic Catechism on Purgatory.

That quote is actually a reflection of Orthodox teaching on prayer for the dead.

Nowhere does it say one must accept the idea of "Purgatory" itself.

The Filioque is not heretical, but it CAN be understood in a heretical fashion, IF one understands it to mean that the Spirit is spirated ACIVELY from both the Father and the Son.

Roman Catholic doctrine affirms that the Spirit is only spirated actively from the Father alone, but PASSIVELY from the Son (the Eastern "From the Father through the Son").

The issue of the Western Church placing the Filioque unilaterally in a Creed intended as the expression of Universal Catholic faith is important as well.

The Western Church had no authority to do this to a creed established by Ecumenical Councils and documents such as Dominus Iesus appear to agree with this.

The Pope has allowed the RC Church of Greece to publicly recite the Nicene Creed without the Filioque.

Whenever His Holiness celebrates the Latin Mass in the Greek language, he does NOT use the Filioque.

Ultimately, the issue is more a question of maintaining the ancient, universal Creed - which is without the Filioque.

With apologies to Cantor Joseph who, I know, doesn't like Filioque discussions . . .

Alex

Pax,

I also have the Catechism and it does state 1 and 3, but I it does not say 2.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Again, Eastern Catholics MUST accept the Church's teaching on original sin, even if they don't have to do within an Augustinian framework, and don't have to use the exact phrase "original sin."

Don't make the mistake of thinking that Latin Catholicism uncritically accepts everything Augustine said and taught.

The three points I named are the "idea" of Purgatory itself. Eastern Catholics have to beleive in Purgatory, period, at least the bare essentials outlines by Catholic dogma and the Catechism.

And don't patronize me with your babble on the Filioque. I alreay KNOW all of that. I never said that Eastern Catholics were required to use th phrase in the Creed.

PaxTecvm,

You obviously think the Eastern Catholic Churches
are nothing but mere "rites" of the Latin/Roman Catholic Church. One cannot be a mere generic Catholic. One is always a member of a particular Church, which is either Latin, Byzantine, Coptic, etc.

I too can say that Catholic Church teaches nothing on the Filioque and Purgatory without qualifying that particular theological tradition because my Catholic Church doesn't teach it or celebrate it. Period. If you call me a heretic, then you call my bishop (and all other Eastern Catholic bishops) a heretic too.

Joe

Lance:

The Union Councils of Lyons and Florence dogmatically taught that:

"The souls of those that depart this life with true repentance and in the love of God, before they have rendered satisfaction for their trespasses and negligences by the worthy fruits of penance, are purified after death with the punishments of purification."

Out of consideration for the Orthodox, the same Councils refrained from defining the nature of these punishments (eg. whether or not they concist of a purifying "fire").

PaxT,

From the Union of Brest, Article No. 5:

"We shall not debate about purgatory"

Get the drift? If not, then refer to Article 1 of that same union document:

"Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son."

If Rome and its delegates accepted this, and it was good enought for them, then it is good enough for me as a Byzantine Catholic.

Just drop the issue.

I don't think this.

Duh!

Your Church certainly does believe the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory; it's in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is as binding on your Church as it is on mine.

Show me where your bishop contradicts the clear teaching of the Catholic Catechism; then we'll talk.

Dear PaxTecum,

I hope I'm not patronizing you - and if you know all that about the Filioque, I don't see how this knowledge informs what you wrote before.

The point is that the Eastern Churches have always prayed for the dead and does not need Rome to tell them to do so. Purgatory is a Latin doctrine that expresses a Latin religious view that has no place in the East. We pray for the dead way more than you guys do.

(And if you are going to get upset and use nasty language, I'll just stop talking with you).

Our point is that what you say is necessary for Eastern Catholics to believe as defined by Rome are things we have ALWAYS believed even when we weren't in communion with Rome.

In other words, apart from the fullness of communion with Rome, there is no doctrine from Rome that can teach us anything our Churches haven't believed already and since the time of the Apostles.

(You can't get your nastiness from Armstrong - he is a gentleman.)

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

Nowhere did I say I did not accept the Church's teaching on Original Sin. I just don't accept Augustinian notions regarding it. Do you believe that I, as an Eastern Catholic, must profess that we inherit a personal stain of guilt from Adam's original sin?

And I'm making no mistake regarding the Latin Church. I grew up there and was practically a signature away from going to seminary. I simply ask you not to make the mistake of thinking that we, as a sui juris Church, must profess the Latin perspective on things, which is what you are baldy implying, especially regarding Purgatory.

Quote

Eastern Catholics have to beleive in Purgatory, period, at least the bare essentials outlines by Catholic dogma and the Catechism.

What we must believe is that prayer is beneficial for those who have died in Christ. As you stated earlier, the rest is speculation. Whether a place called Purgatory or the Toll Houses of Orthodoxy, or anything else that has been "theologized" over the past 2000 years, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that our prayers can help our departed brothers and sisters achieve a more perfect union with God.

Quote

And don't patronize me with your babble on the Filioque. I alreay KNOW all of that. I never said that Eastern Catholics were required to use th phrase in the Creed.

I would suggest that you not patronize us with vulgar language and an attitude that I last found in a SSPX member who told me I was going to Hell because I don't kneel to receive communion.

In Christ,
mikey.

PaxT,

Guess what? We no longer celebrate the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception either. Many of our churches have removed that title and have gone back to calling their patroness "St. Mary." We only celebrate the mystery of the Conception of St. Anne.