NationStates

Hakons wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:You know it's not an either-or thing. Papal Infallibility as we know it didn't even exist in your church until the 1800's. The sheer vagueness of the dogma shows its wrongheadedness and that it was never accepted in the early church.

The immaculate conception cannot be true because, if the Theotokos is without ancestral sin, then Christ's sacrifice was not necessary to be without ancestral sin.

I know less about Marian theology, but papal infallibility was always part of the Catholic Church, it just wasn't completely defined until Leo VIII clarified in the 1800s. The successor of St. Peter, given leadership by Christ, has always been the leading authority on matters of doctrine in the Catholic Church.

Then why did they never use this until the 1800's? Papal primacy existed always and even supremacy in the West, but infallibility? It was totally foreign to the early Church outside of the Ecumenical Synods.

Luminesa wrote:

Cill Airne wrote:I went East, to Orthodoxy

Ohhhhhh! Cool! What inspired the switch? :3

The cool beards.

I guess I was a little unhappy in Anglicanism, for a few reasons so I started to look around. I'm not convinced by Protestantism at all, so that really left Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I just found a truth in Orthodoxy, in teachings like theosis, and many Catholic doctrines still did not sit right with me like that of Papal supremacy (which were why I had gone to Anglo-Catholicism and not Roman Catholicism in the first place).

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
The doctrine isn't vague at all. And it wasn't officially recognized until Vatican I, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.



Unless Mary was unique and received the remittance of original sin in anticipation of Christ's sacrifice. You know, how the doctrine states.

It's incredibly vague in that it doesn't give detail in where it applies. Apart from that, it says outright that the Pope is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, which is clearly untrue as ecumenical councils have anathemized former Popes.

That would still mean that Christ's sacrifice wasn't necessary. If you can do something prior to doing the necessary thing to do that, then clearly the necessary thing wasn't so necessary at all. The dogma as stated is not logically coherent, as it doesn't follow basic cause and effect.

Sorry for the late reply, I was doing laundry.

Ah, but you see, in Catholic theology it's de fide that, as applies to the acts of God, causes do not have to precede effect.

Cill Airne wrote:

Luminesa wrote:Ohhhhhh! Cool! What inspired the switch? :3

The cool beards.

I guess I was a little unhappy in Anglicanism, for a few reasons so I started to look around. I'm not convinced by Protestantism at all, so that really left Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I just found a truth in Orthodoxy, in teachings like theosis, and many Catholic doctrines still did not sit right with me like that of Papal supremacy (which were why I had gone to Anglo-Catholicism and not Roman Catholicism in the first place).

Theosis and our mystical ideas are really the huge draw, I just think a lot of Orthodoxy's ideas are more profound than what is found in other religious traditions.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Cill Airne wrote:The cool beards.

I guess I was a little unhappy in Anglicanism, for a few reasons so I started to look around. I'm not convinced by Protestantism at all, so that really left Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I just found a truth in Orthodoxy, in teachings like theosis, and many Catholic doctrines still did not sit right with me like that of Papal supremacy (which were why I had gone to Anglo-Catholicism and not Roman Catholicism in the first place).

Theosis and our mystical ideas are really the huge draw, I just think a lot of Orthodoxy's ideas are more profound than what is found in other religious traditions.

They are. Orthodoxy's mysticism has a depth that I haven't really found elsewhere which was a major draw. It's really beautiful and really intimidating all at once.

Cill Airne wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Theosis and our mystical ideas are really the huge draw, I just think a lot of Orthodoxy's ideas are more profound than what is found in other religious traditions.

They are. Orthodoxy's mysticism has a depth that I haven't really found elsewhere which was a major draw. It's really beautiful and really intimidating all at once.

I find Catholicism the least intimidating form of Christianity, having gone to a Catholic High School.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Cill Airne wrote:They are. Orthodoxy's mysticism has a depth that I haven't really found elsewhere which was a major draw. It's really beautiful and really intimidating all at once.

I find Catholicism the least intimidating form of Christianity, having gone to a Catholic High School.

That's because the mysticism was purposefully obscured by masonic forces in the XX century in order to cause mass apostasy, destroy the social kingship of Christ, and marginalize the church, such that many formerly pious souls seek solace in witchcraft and eastern forms of mysticism.

Diopolis wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:I find Catholicism the least intimidating form of Christianity, having gone to a Catholic High School.

That's because the mysticism was purposefully obscured by masonic forces in the XX century in order to cause mass apostasy, destroy the social kingship of Christ, and marginalize the church, such that many formerly pious souls seek solace in witchcraft and eastern forms of mysticism.

You drank the sea water didn’t you?....

Tarsonis wrote:

Diopolis wrote:That's because the mysticism was purposefully obscured by masonic forces in the XX century in order to cause mass apostasy, destroy the social kingship of Christ, and marginalize the church, such that many formerly pious souls seek solace in witchcraft and eastern forms of mysticism.

You drank the sea water didn’t you?....

There's a reason exorcisms are becoming necessary with greater and greater frequency.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
The doctrine isn't vague at all. And it wasn't officially recognized until Vatican I, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.



Unless Mary was unique and received the remittance of original sin in anticipation of Christ's sacrifice. You know, how the doctrine states.

It's incredibly vague in that it doesn't give detail in where it applies. Apart from that, it says outright that the Pope is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, which is clearly untrue as ecumenical councils have anathemized former Popes.

Yet we all know how it applies: in case of controversy and necessity to preserve the community of the Church. All Bishops posses the Charism of Infallibilty. It is what preserves doctrine and makes Eccumenical councils reliable. The Pope’s Infallibility, is an executive of infallibility attached the office of the supreme pontiff. Essentially: the Pope has the last word/veto power/ executive discression/ what ever you want to call it.

As for superiority we’ve been over this a dozen times or more, every time I tell you you’re wrong, explain to you why that’s not the case, and you refuse to internalize the information, and argue the same point I’ve already corrected a dozen times. It really is tiresome.

That would still mean that Christ's sacrifice wasn't necessary. If you can do something prior to doing the necessary thing to do that, then clearly the necessary thing wasn't so necessary at all. The dogma as stated is not logically coherent, as it doesn't follow basic cause and effect.

Sorry for the late reply, I was doing laundry.

No, because there’s nothing one can do to receive said grace. Mary was chosen to receive it, she didn’t earn it. Secondly, when it comes to theistic principles, cause need not preceed effect. God is not bound by linear constrictions, God can convey the grace of Christ in anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice, because God is all powerful. God’s plan was written before creation. God’s plan is already complete. God’s decree and actions are timeless.

The same way Adam was made in Christ’s image thousands of year before Gabriel appeared to St. Mary.

Diopolis wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
You drank the sea water didn’t you?....

There's a reason exorcisms are becoming necessary with greater and greater frequency.

If you believe St. Anthony it’s because people are getting closer and closer to God.

Tarsonis wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:It's incredibly vague in that it doesn't give detail in where it applies. Apart from that, it says outright that the Pope is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, which is clearly untrue as ecumenical councils have anathemized former Popes.

Yet we all know how it applies: in case of controversy and necessity to preserve the community of the Church. All Bishops posses the Charism of Infallibilty. It is what preserves doctrine and makes Eccumenical councils reliable. The Pope’s Infallibility, is an executive of infallibility attached the office of the supreme pontiff. Essentially: the Pope has the last word/veto power/ executive discression/ what ever you want to call it.

As for superiority we’ve been over this a dozen times or more, every time I tell you you’re wrong, explain to you why that’s not the case, and you refuse to internalize the information, and argue the same point I’ve already corrected a dozen times. It really is tiresome.

That would still mean that Christ's sacrifice wasn't necessary. If you can do something prior to doing the necessary thing to do that, then clearly the necessary thing wasn't so necessary at all. The dogma as stated is not logically coherent, as it doesn't follow basic cause and effect.

Sorry for the late reply, I was doing laundry.

No, because there’s nothing one can do to receive said grace. Mary was chosen to receive it, she didn’t earn it. Secondly, when it comes to theistic principles, cause need not preceed effect. God is not bound by linear constrictions, God can convey the grace of Christ in anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice, because God is all powerful. God’s plan was written before creation. God’s plan is already complete. God’s decree and actions are timeless.

The same way Adam was made in Christ’s image thousands of year before Gabriel appeared to St. Mary.

What Papal Infallibility claims, however, is that the Pope is superior to an Ecumenical Council, and is incapable of being a heretic, this is clearly not the case. Moreover, the dogma doesn't limit to such extreme cases, despite what apologists have argued over the last century.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:Yet we all know how it applies: in case of controversy and necessity to preserve the community of the Church. All Bishops posses the Charism of Infallibilty. It is what preserves doctrine and makes Eccumenical councils reliable. The Pope’s Infallibility, is an executive of infallibility attached the office of the supreme pontiff. Essentially: the Pope has the last word/veto power/ executive discression/ what ever you want to call it.

As for superiority we’ve been over this a dozen times or more, every time I tell you you’re wrong, explain to you why that’s not the case, and you refuse to internalize the information, and argue the same point I’ve already corrected a dozen times. It really is tiresome.



No, because there’s nothing one can do to receive said grace. Mary was chosen to receive it, she didn’t earn it. Secondly, when it comes to theistic principles, cause need not preceed effect. God is not bound by linear constrictions, God can convey the grace of Christ in anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice, because God is all powerful. God’s plan was written before creation. God’s plan is already complete. God’s decree and actions are timeless.

The same way Adam was made in Christ’s image thousands of year before Gabriel appeared to St. Mary.

What Papal Infallibility claims, however, is that the Pope is superior to an Ecumenical Council, and is incapable of being a heretic, this is clearly not the case.

You’re right, cause that’s not what the doctrine claims.

Moreover, the dogma doesn't limit to such extreme cases, despite what apologists have argued over the last century.

You mean those theologians who actually know what it means?

Tarsonis wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:What Papal Infallibility claims, however, is that the Pope is superior to an Ecumenical Council, and is incapable of being a heretic, this is clearly not the case.

You’re right, cause that’s not what the doctrine claims.

Moreover, the dogma doesn't limit to such extreme cases, despite what apologists have argued over the last century.

You mean those theologians who actually know what it means?

It absolutely is what it claims:

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:You’re right, cause that’s not what the doctrine claims.




You mean those theologians who actually know what it means?

It absolutely is what it claims:

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

Sigh... okay I’ll go through this again with you.

Firstly, That is not a proclamation on Papal Infallibility. That is a proclamation on Papal Primacy/Supremacy.

Now It’s not referring to matters of doctrine, nor the Pontiff himself but matters of the Pontiffs “Judgement”. The Pope, when passing Judgement on a member of the Church, i.e, excommunicating someone, that judgment cannot be reversed by someone else. As Supreme Governer of the earthly Church, his excommunication cannot be overridden by an EC.


As for the Pontiff himself it’s more complicated. Canon 1404 of dictates that the First See is judged by no one, because the Pope has no earthy superior. He answers to God alone. If the Pope were to perform an excommunicable offense, he would by nature of latae sententiae, abdicate the See. He’d still be a Pope, but he’d not be a sitting a Pope. But, As we’ve never had
a siting Pope commit an excomunicable offense, we’ve never had to test that.

As for the aforementioned anathamizing of Honorius 1, this happened years after his death, and was accepted by Leo II, making them valid.


Edit: It should also be mentioned that, Vatican I wasn't unilaterally declared dogma by the Pope but was by an Ecumenical Council with the conception that the Orthodox Patriachs are in schism, and thus have no valid authority within the Church proper. However, if reunification were to happen, the Canon laws could be Amended to reflect the restored authority of the other Patriarchs.

After watching the new LutheranSatire video, I request that any Mormons present push for a motion to rename their church "The Church of Cheese and Rice of Latter Day Saints".

Tarsonis wrote:

Diopolis wrote:There's a reason exorcisms are becoming necessary with greater and greater frequency.

If you believe St. Anthony it’s because people are getting closer and closer to God.

With all due respect to St. Anthony I don't think he'd be correct if he meant this century, which is probably the most godless and faithless that it's ever been so far.

Stonok wrote:After watching the new LutheranSatire video, I request that any Mormons present push for a motion to rename their church "The Church of Cheese and Rice of Latter Day Saints".

The most recent LS vid was Jehovah's Witnesses, not Mormons.

Salus Maior wrote:

Stonok wrote:After watching the new LutheranSatire video, I request that any Mormons present push for a motion to rename their church "The Church of Cheese and Rice of Latter Day Saints".

The most recent LS vid was Jehovah's Witnesses, not Mormons.

Yes, at the end of which they suggest that the JWs should have called their church the Church of Cheese and Rice of Latter Day Saints, at which point two Mormons appear.

Salus Maior wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
If you believe St. Anthony, it’s because people are getting closer and closer to God.

With all due respect to St. Anthony I don't think he'd be correct if he meant this century, which is probably the most godless and faithless that it's ever been so far.

I mean you can make the argument that because of this lapse a lot of people are being drawn to "new" (in the sense of foreign) religion especially in areas where it was decimated or the native religion is lacking.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Except we don't.

Papal Infallibility, universal jurisdiction, Immaculate Conception, Mediatrix of all graces, etc. etc.

Moreover, the Pope can introduce heresy as well, by virtue of declaring him the supreme arbitrator of dogma.

I don’t know why Orthodox would consider ‘Mediatrix of all Graces’ heresy. A lot of Orthodox hymns, Saints, devotions, etc., can be just as verbose and extreme as Catholic counterparts.

Salus Maior wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
If you believe St. Anthony it’s because people are getting closer and closer to God.

With all due respect to St. Anthony I don't think he'd be correct if he meant this century, which is probably the most godless and faithless that it's ever been so far.

Meh. It’s also the best to live in, materially speaking.

Minzerland II wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Papal Infallibility, universal jurisdiction, Immaculate Conception, Mediatrix of all graces, etc. etc.

Moreover, the Pope can introduce heresy as well, by virtue of declaring him the supreme arbitrator of dogma.

I don’t know why Orthodox would consider ‘Mediatrix of all Graces’ heresy. A lot of Orthodox hymns, Saints, devotions, etc., can be just as verbose and extreme as Catholic counterparts.

Especially, since all that title is, is an affirmation that St. Mary played a role in our salvation through being Jesus' mum.

Kowani wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
With all due respect to St. Anthony I don't think he'd be correct if he meant this century, which is probably the most godless and faithless that it's ever been so far.

Meh. It’s also the best to live in, materially speaking.

Materialism is an empty way to live.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Lost Memories wrote:If the synod of Constantinople was accepted by all Orthodox Patriarchates, shouldn't that solve this administrative dispute over the validity of the indipendent Patriarchate of Ukraine? (that would be very similar as having an higher authority as the pope)

Constantinople doesn't have universal jurisdiction or authority, it cannot interfere in the internal affairs of the Russian holy synod.

What tools are there in orthodoxy to solve disputes which go above the authority of single national synods?

Like this one between the Russian and Ukranian Orthodox seems to be.