Haec Dies, Confitemini Domino - Catholic Gregorian Chant

[coolest813]

Hello Peter,

how could it be that the Church of Rome, which split from the 4 other churches(Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria) in 1054 be the church with the correct dogma when the Orthodox Church's name itself, which means straight or unchanging "ortho" doctrine "dox," is acknowledged by the Catholic Church itself?

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 It's not a matter of etymology. Both the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church mean the same thing essentially in word. The schism was not the four other Churches but Constantinople severing itself from the Catholic Church and the Apostolic See. Canon 28 of Chalcedon was not ratified anyway, but it did not grant equality for the Constantinopalian Patriarch with Roman See. Caesaropapism in New Rome was a major problem.

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter Yes, the dispute that started the schism was originally between Constantinople and Rome. The Church of Constantinople has never been considered greater than any of the other Churches, they are all equal. However, the Church of Constantinople has always been considered "the first among equals." The Church of Rome sent a legate to Patriarch Cerularius of Constantinople insisting that he recognizes the Church of Rome to be considered the head and mother of all Churches.

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 The Church of Constantinople was only considered such after Chalcedon, and only by imperial distinction of the political supremacy of the city. The Apostolic See did not move to New Rome when the Emperors did. The Church of Rome (or rather, the Pontiff) has supremacy over all Bishops of the Church. That is not a novel doctrine, it has been the same since the beginning. The apostles, and ante-Nicene and post Nicene Fathers all came to the Pope for jurisdiction and pastoral help.

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter Of course it did not move, the Apostolic See of Rome stayed in Rome, there was the Apostolic See of Constantinople in New Rome anyway. Please do not say something without endorsing it with sources, for example you said the Church of Rome has supremacy over all Bishops of the Church. Where was that written? Do you have any documents prior to the 10th century that actually do state that the Church of Rome has supremacy over all other Churches?

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"- Cyrpian of Carthage 251 AD

Were not the keys to the kingdom given to Peter (and his succesors) exclusively and not to the twelve?

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter Peter founded the Church of Antioch, and then was sent by Antioch to found Rome. Therefore the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchs are also successors of Peter.

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 "If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" - St.Clement of Rome

"For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree — that is the faithful everywhere — in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere" - St. Ireneus of Lyons.

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter St. Clement was writing to the Corinthians telling them to be obedient to the Church of Rome(at that time most of Europe was under the Church of Rome, which is why St. Clement was writing to the Corinthians.) Nowhere in the WHOLE letter does he claim Rome has superiority over any of the other Churches(as I said he was strictly speaking to the Corinthians, not the Antiochians, not the Egyptians, etc....)

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter And that is true, the Roman Patriarch's advices were highly regarded and he was asked to solve disputes between other Patriarchs. However all that is not because the other Patriarch consider him greater than them, but rather because he is isolated from the other four and thus would be unbiased when solving problems between two or more other patriarchs.

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 Not true. Proximity has nothing to do with it. It would be more logical to say that the language difference would be a unbiased approach (i.e. Latin Rome and Greek others). No, the chair of Peter commands the supremacy and primacy of the Churches of Christ, as Peter was entrusted to feed the sheep over and above the call of the twelve. 

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea: "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges....... If two or three bishops shall oppose the common suffrage of the rest, then let the choice of the majority prevail." It doesn't say Rome's opinion, it says majority's opinion.

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter Cerularius declined. The leader of the Latin contingent excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated the legates. The other three Churches followed the Church of Constantinople. The names differ too, I have already explained the etymology of word Orthodox, and Catholic means "universal," or "the one that gathers all." Of course the Orthodox Church also considers itself to be the universal and gathering Church.

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 Yes. Both consider themselves to be the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. The three other Patriarchies followed on grounds of political uniformity, not as a matter of right Faith.

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 If you are Orthodox than I truly pray you shall unite to the Apostolic See again. Both sides (Latin and Greek) have acted poorly in some cases. I am Eastern Catholic, of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, and in the bosom of the Catholic Church I find peace. We have reunited with Rome for the sake of unity and because of Papal Supremacy over Conciliar. We are so very close in theology my friend, let us unite as brothers.

Benedicite Deum

Ο Θεός ευλογεί

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter Yes I am Antiochian Orthodox my friend. I wish we were close in theology my friend, but over the years since the Great Schism the Catholic Church has added many new teachings which we consider heresies, such as the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, Papal infallibility, age restriction in Communion, etc....

We have absolutely no problem with reunification, in fact we wish we would reunite. However, we will not accept a reunification unless the dogma remains correct.

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 We are very close in theology. As for new teachings, these are not novel but Tradition to retain orthodoxy from the novelty of heresy. It is necessary that new dogmas be issued in response to novel heresies. What is the uniform teaching that Orthodox Churches have in response to errors of rationalism, modernism, and protestant reformation heresies? The Churches cut off from Rome have essentially become dead in the matter of Magesterium because of a lack of unity and heirarchy....

[catholicpeter]

@catholicpeter ...that is essential to define such teachings that protect orthodoxy. As for the age of Eucharist, it is a matter of discipline and can thus be changed with the times. In my Eastern Church, Eucharist for young is not forbidden though generally unpracticed. As for Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility, they do nothing to destroy the Faith or add anything. They merely reaffirm the doctrines of Incarnation of the Word, and Peters infallibility in Faith or Morals.

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter Lack of unity and hierarchy? Speak about the Catholic Church having three men who each claimed to be a Pope at the same time. While the Catholic Church was barely survivng the Dark Ages in Europe, the Eastern Orthodox Church was prospering with saints and religious writings and was at its height. Even after the Muslim's taking control and the fall of Constantinople, the Orthodox Church remained unified, intact, and even expanded further.

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 The Catholic Church was barely surviving because of the fall of the west to pagan tribes, as you are aware. And at that time, there was no schism and hence no Orthodox Church. The Eastern CATHOLIC Church was prospering behind the protective guard of the Empire. The Orthodox Church remained unified? I have seen so many instances of factions of orthodox (e.g. Albanian, Greek, Russian) fighting with each other on the grounds of cultural arrogance and sophism. No there is no unity.

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter I meant the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary herself by St. Anna. We believe in the Immaculate Conception of Jesus Christ, however the Catholic Church believes Mary was also immaculately conceived. This teaching is wrong because it shows that God used Mary as a tool, as if her whole life was only to bear Christ. If Christ was conceived by a sinless woman(as the Catholic Church believes,) then that shows him as being not humble and not accepting to be born from a sinner.

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter Only a woman with strong faith could bear Jesus, and that was Mary. Every man or woman sins, except Jesus Christ of course. Saying that Mary was conceived immaculately and has never sinned is euqating her to Christ. About infallibility, Peter has also sinned, and so has EVERY man to ever live. If the Pope makes no wrong decisions, do you agree with the Crusades and the slaughter of the Orthodox people?

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 As for Papal infallibility, we do not pretend that Peter and his successors were protected from sin as was the Virgin Mary, but that the Holy See was incapable of erring in matters of Faith and Morals when making a pronouncement ex cathedra. I do not agree with the slaughter of the Easter Empire, but that was not the Popes intention. The crusades were justified and meant to help your people from Muslim invasion. Unfortunately the crusaders fell to grave injustice. A dark part of crsd

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter New teachings are ok as long as they are correct and are not considered wrong with regard to the apostolic teaching. Modernism- Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Seraphim Rose. St. Gregory Palamas has written about rationalism and criticized it, showing its flaws. Protestant reformation heresies are inherently wrong and contradict the ancient writings of the Fathers of the Church, I could explain why Protestantism is wrong from an Orthodox view, and could cite it.

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 Again, without a uniform hierarchy and magesterium to pronounce formal declarations on matters of Faith and Morals, the Orthodox Church is essentially lifeless in pouring forth the Truth. But, I cannot convince you, nor you me, so I give you the final word. Let us pray for one another that heresy be crushed, and God defend the right.

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter I apologize, I am but 15 years of age and my knowledge is finite. I will visit my priest sometime this week(probably tomorrow) and ask him some questions, then I will reply. God bless.

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 It is not a game where whoever posts most or last will win. The powers temporal and spiritual are the ones with full extent of knowledge. You and I arguing are two worms fighting the battle of lions. Our arguments are insignificant and incomplete. In order to avoid further hostilities or the onset of rage, I will abstain from further argument here. Both sides (Orthodox and Catholic) have strong points, and both sides are convinced they are right. So, quid est veritas?

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter If you think I am angry or doing this to prove that I am right, you are wrong. I love having these debates, this is not a hostile argument but rather a peaceful one. Every time you eply, I simply feel obliged to defend my Orthodox faith and reply back.

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 Anyway, for 15 you have a head on your shoulders (though don't let it get puffed up, :)) Have you thought of being a monk. OSBM perhaps? I don't know how the situation is in Orthodoxy but in Catholicism (East and West) the monastery's and seminary's are either empty or full of wolves in sheep's clothing. As a Roman priest I once heard said ever so simply, we don't need priests and monks, we need GOOD priests and monks.God help us all.

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter Thank you :) Yes in fact I am planning to become a monk. I hope I would be in a Mount Athos monastery, but few people make it there. More probably the Cherubim Monastery in Syria. I am not sure about the condition of Orthodox monasteries, I have only been Orthodox for about 3 years(used to be Chaldean Catholic.) But of course there are people who give hard times in our monasteries, a monk explained that in a documentary I watched recently.

[catholicpeter]

@coolest813 I sincerely recommend "The Teachings of the Church fathers" by Fr. John Willis SJ. It is a indexed by subject compilation of the contextual excerpts relating to Catholic Dogma from the Fathers Ante and Post Nicaea up to I think John Damascene. The compilation contains both Greek and Latins. From such work you will find the agreement of the Fathers on issues of Papal Primacy, Immaculate Conception, Procession of the Spirit, etc. God bless you too.

[coolest813]

@catholicpeter I will try to get a hold of it soon, thank you. A book I think will help you is the History of the Christian Church by Eugraph Smirnov. Fr. Thomas Hopko also has many good books explaining the Orthodox faith and Orthodox standings on many different subjects. By the way you may be wondering how I found you; it was on the Nicene Creed video, where I commented about procession from the Son not being in the original creed. It was several months ago, but I forgot to reply :)

[kooper1001]

PEACE AND GOOD!

PAX ET BONUM!

[kooper1001]

Pax Domine sit semper vobiscum!