Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: MarkBsnr; HarleyD
Mark to HD: The Church of Christ most definitely includes the Orthodox. For those of the Reformed persuasion who do not believe that anything beyond yesterday matters, let me remind you that in the first millennium, most of the heretics were of the East and that the Latins held Orthodoxy. In the latter years, we Latins have strayed a tad and the Orthodox have held fast. It is a Catholic Church and not a Roman one. And I think that almost all of us understand that.

I agree, but I think HD was referring to our doctrinal differences. Again, our doctrinal differences are not differences of belief but of definition. It is not that we believe in that Mary in not immaculate, but how she got to be that way; we do not deny the original sin, but what it means.

There are ecclesial differences that are not doctrinal, such as the extent of papal jurisdiction (something actively discussed by both particular Churches as we write).

The Catholics state that the Orthodox lack the 'fullness" of the Catholic Church because they are not (yet) in communion with the Pope. That is true!. Just as it is true that the Catholic Church is not full because it is not communion with the Eastern part of the Church! Or for that matter because it is not in communion with the apostate Protestant communions.

The Church will not be full until we all share the Eucharist; only then will the Church experience the fullness in Christ literally speaking.

1,042 posted on 02/02/2008 8:17:34 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1004 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50; MarkBsnr
I agree, but I think HD was referring to our doctrinal differences. Again, our doctrinal differences are not differences of belief but of definition. It is not that we believe in that Mary in not immaculate, but how she got to be that way; we do not deny the original sin, but what it means. There are ecclesial differences that are not doctrinal, such as the extent of papal jurisdiction (something actively discussed by both particular Churches as we write).

Correct kosta. To the Orthodox the idea of the infalibility of the Pope would be ecclesial. Thus the bishops and cardinals have given the Pope that right. Orthodoxs do not agree that the Pope has that right, certainly not to rule over them, and they see this strictly as an ecclesial issue.

Protestants believe Catholics issue the infallibility issue as a doctrinal statement and they specifically lay out a case for this in Vatican 1. Catholics have gone on record as saying the infalibility of the Pope comes directly from God-not bishops and cardinals and use the traditions of the Church to support their view (even referring to the Greek Church). Consequently Protestants view the statement from the Church as laid out in Vatican 1 not as ecclesical in nature but doctrinal. I would call your attention to Vatican 1:

Seeing some of the new doctrines coming from the Pope about Mary, I am sure the Orthodoxs do not look at this as infallible. While Orthodox would simply roll their eyes and yawn, Protestants see this as a rather significant boo-boo. I would suggest the Orthodox normally give the Catholics far greater leyway then Protestants.

So I guess our question for our friend MarkBsnr is whether he considers Vatican 1 with respect to the infallibility of the Pope, ecclesial in nature and subject to change or if he considers it doctrine unable to be changed.

1,116 posted on 02/03/2008 1:10:48 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1042 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson