Should Roman Catholic Women Priests bishops be invited to certain Vatican Masses and Divine Office Liturgies. Are the FSSPX worse than Roman Catholic Women Priests Roman Catholic Parishes? I ask; you answer:
https://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/index.php/
And this article in the National catholic Reporter laments the horrors of the schismatic and gloating FSSPX parish in Boston along with their fiddleback vestments—such horrors!
Since the FSSPX is in schism like the Eastern Orthodox Church, shouldn’t the NcR and others be more conciliatory towards the FSSPX as they are towards the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Communion and others Protestant Sects.
Shouldn’t the FSSPX be invited by the Pope to certain Masses at St. Peter’s as Eastern Orthodox Prelates are on a regular basis? Both now share in the glories of not being in full Communion with the Church but the Orthodox are invited to participate in papal liturgies and so have been the Anglicans and other Protestant clergy—is it time now for the FSSPX bishops to be invited?
SSPX excommunication hasn't stopped Boston church from defying the Vatican
I don’t like using the terms “conservative and liberal” to describe Catholics and what they believe as these are political terms not religious. I prefer heterodox and orthodox.
Mike Lewis complains bitterly that “conservative” Catholics known for their ultramontanism prior to Pope Francis became like the “liberal” Catholics who denigrated Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI for their “conservative” magisterial teachings and this disobedience and disrespect came from cardinals, other bishops, other clergy, the religious and laity in the Church.
“Liberals” can be heterodox just as “conservatives” can be heterodox.
I am not sure that when “conservative” Catholics turned on Pope Francis for what they perceived to be his polarizing, incoherent teachings and policies that that was heterodoxy although it may well have been mortal sins against charity in terms of how they did it.
But I do think that when “liberal” Catholics demand that women or whatever gender or form of marriage an individual may have, they should be ordained to Holy Orders, celebrate their sexual relations with anyone or everyone as Holy Matrimony and that the Most Holy Eucharist should be distributed to everyone, everyone, everyone, no matter their religion or moral status before God. That is heterodoxy pure and simple and the greatest crisis facing the Church today.
It isn’t conservative’s heterodoxy or sins against charity that is the Church’s greatest crisis or the FSSPX schism. It is the liberal schism that is the greatest crisis in the Church today, but not acknowledged in the highest places of the Church.
87 comments:
The fact that Cupich remains the archbishop of Chicago two and one half years after he turned 75, is all you need to know about corruption in the Church. The Archdiocese of Chicago is in virtual freefall so why is he still there?
He is part of the problem you are pointing out, Father McDonald. They should appoint native-son, Thomas Prapocki of Springfield, Archbishop, but they won't because is supportive of the TLM and he has banned fake Catholic, Senator Dick Durbin, from receiving Holy Communion in Springfield.
More "fruits" of Vatican II:
even Catholic churches in northwest Minnesota will stop holding Sunday Mass.
The diocese has been seeing declining attendance at the services, as well as a shortage of priests. Last fall, Bishop Andrew Cozzens began meeting with parishes to come up with a long-term plan for the diocese.
The seven churches are St. Philip in Falun, St. Mary in Badger, St. Francis Xavier in Okless, St. Ann in Goodridge,, St. Francis of Assisi in Fisher, St. Mary in Euclid and St. Joseph in Oslo, the Grand Forks Herald reported.
This will bring the total number of parishes down from 65 to 58. Cozzens said that half of the diocese's 32 priests will be eligible to retire over the next decade.
The diocese will begin looking at the parishes on the southern side of the state this fall, with the goal of running the diocese on 25 priests.
In regard to the issue of "gloating":
That stems from the tremendous amount of confidence that SSPX clergy, as well as laity attached to the SSPX, have in their cause.
They are convinced that God has tasked them to "correct" Pope Leo XIV...to lead His Holiness from his supposed embrace of modernism...if not His Holiness, then the next Pope, or the Pope after that...
One day, God will raise a Pope who will destroy Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, as well as each grave error that our Vatican II Era Popes have embraced/taught.
When one believes that — that God is on the SSPX's side — then one could not care less that "modernist" Pope Leo XIV has viewed God's chosen remnant — the SSPX — as schismatic.
If anything, the SSPX will hold out for another Pope Benedict XVI, or, Pope Francis, who, while having embraced modernism supposedly, will nevertheless "coddle" the SSPX.
The SSPX is confident that at the least, a future Pope will cancel Pope Leo XIV's supposed cruel, vicious treatment of the Society.
From there, returning to irregular, rather than excommunicated status, would be easy for the SSPX to handle.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The issue of gloating related to the SSPX:
The Society has identified Pope Leo XIV as another Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI...another Vatican II Era Pope who has embraced grave, destructive errors associated with modernism.
The Society has noted its growth.
In turn, the Society has identified Pope Leo XIV as another Pope who will promote Vatican II, the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, the Church's opening to the world...
...all the supposed "grave errors" that the Society has viewed as having shattered the Church.
Good luck attempting to convince the SSPX not to gloat as the Society continues to expand, while they believe that Pope Leo XIV will ensure that Newchurch continues to disintegrate.
========
Father Davide Pagliarani, SSPX Superior General, in regard to Newchurch:
"In an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation."
When one believes that, as the SSPX continues to grow, it is not difficult to find examples of gloating among folks attached to the Society.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
You ask: Are the FSSPX worse than Roman Catholic Women Priests Roman Catholic Parishes? No SSPX do not parody the Mass and the Mass SSPX offers is valid
Pope Benedict XVI had portrayed the Church as mired in a state of tremendous collapse.
Pope Benedict XVI, January 27, 2012 A.D:
"As we know, in vast areas of the earth faith risks being extinguished, like a flame that is no longer fed.
"We are facing a profound crisis of faith, a loss of the religious sense that constitutes the greatest challenge to the Church today.
"The renewal of faith must therefore take priority in the commitment of the entire Church in our time."
=======
On February 14, 2013 A.D., Pope Benedict XVI had acknowledge that we were in the midst of "so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy …"
Nevertheless, Pope Benedict XVI refused to view the above as "fruits of Vatican II. He acknowledged the presence of liturgical and spiritual destruction throughout the Church.
But Pope Benedict XVI had blamed the above upon "the Council of the media."
He insisted that "there was the Council of the Fathers – the real Council – but there was also the Council of the media."
" Thus, the Council that reached the people with immediate effect was that of the media, not that of the Fathers."
Pope Benedict XVI refused to pin "seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy" upon Vatican II — the real Council.
Today, Pope Leo XIV has continued Rome's unwavering commitment to, as well as positive assessment of, the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council.
It is unimaginable that Rome would ever agree with the SSPX's assessment that via its supposed "grave errors," Vatican II has inflicted horrific destruction and evils upon the Church.
It may be that a future will cancel Pope Leo XIV approach to the SSPX...restore Popes Benedict XVI's, as well as Francis' "coddling" of the Society.
At best, unless the SSPX would embrace full communion with the True Church, the Society's best case scenario is that of irregular status within the Church.
Should that is satisfactory to the SSPX, then so be it. What a shame.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I would not rule out the possibility of a Pope who would "cancel" Pope Leo XIV's approach to the SSPX.
Even folks who are unfavorable toward the SSPX had characterized as "harsh" Pope Leo XIV's reaction to the Society's recent consecrations of bishops.
Prior to that, various folks had characterized Pope Leo XIV's refusal to have meet with SSPX leadership as "a bad look" for His Holiness.
Then there is the following in regard to Pope Leo XIV's approach to the SSPX:
In regard to the Society, Pope Benedict XVI had declared:
"In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
Nevertheless, Pope Benedict XVI had justified his "coddling" of the SSPX in light of the following:
"Can we be totally indifferent about a community (the SSPX)...Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church?"
========
Speaking humanly, it is unimaginable that the SSPX will embrace Pope Leo XIV's supposed destructive "errors" associated with modernism that he, as well as his "NewRome/Newchurch" Vatican II Era predecessors, embraced.
Nevertheless, Popes Benedict XVI, as well as Francis, had lived with the SSPX's rebellious attitude.
Despite the SSPX's intransigence, said Popes had "coddled" the SSPX.
Pope Benedict XVI, in particular, had tolerated the SSPX's nonsense to prevent the Society from having drifted even farther from the Church.
In light of Pope Benedict XVI's above approach to the Society, would Pope Leo XIV have been better served to have dealt with the SSPX in a way that had avoided excommunications?
It is all but a given that the excommunicated SSPX will draft farther from the Church.
To prevent that, or hope to lessen the SSPX's drift from the Church, a Pope may "cancel" the SSPX's current excommunications.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Something something personnel is policy. See Cardinals “Kiss Me, Witch” Fernandez, Cupich, etc
Nick
MT’s comments in this thread are even more bizarrely detached from even approaching being to anything like the point, or even any point, than usual. Did I miss something over the last month or two?
Nick
I could look this up but I am growing lazy - How can excommunicated priests offer a valid Mass with consecration and communion of the laity?
Illicit but valid is an interesting and sometimes confusing distinction. However, once a priest always a priest. Even a laicized and excommunicated priest’s Mass would be illicit but valid if he followed any of the Canonical Roman Missals in the celebration of the Mass. The more confusing aspect for me, as it concerns the FSSPX, is that their Confessions and Marriages are now not only illicit but also invalid. This is a fine canonical distinction that I think could be challenged from a doctrinal point of view, but I am not a canonist or theologian. But the bottom line, the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Matrimony require canonical faculties. If these are removed or not given, the sacraments are invalid.
Because of the Roman Catholic belief that when priests are ordained they have the indelible mark of ordination and the sacraments are ex opere operato.
These two beliefs mean that once a priest is ordained he always has the “power” to confect the sacraments.
I think another example is that of Holy Baptism. Since the Church teaches that Baptism is necessary for salvation, even a layman or laywomen can baptize in an emergency where no priest or deacon is available to offer the Sacrament. Those emergency baptism, which take place all the time in hospital settings and often by Catholic nurses, are both valid and licit. My question has to do with grandparents or other relatives baptizing children of Catholic parents who have not had their children baptized. I have heard of grandparents doing this all the time. In these cases, to be honest with you, I am not sure if the baptisms are invalid, but they are clearly illicit and not seen as an emergency.
This question is to Marc. In a discussion that I had many years ago with my part time parochial vicar, a former Episcopal priest who was married and with children and grandchildren who became a Latin Rite priest and eventually had bi-ritual faculties with one of the Eastern Rites, said that the theology of Eastern Rite Catholics in full communion with the pope, saw the possiblity of a sacrament dying. This was within the context of marriage, that its sacramental aspect could die, just like in the Latin Rite’s doctrine the Reseerved Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist could die if the substance of it becomes corrupted through decay where it no longer resembles bread or wine. That would be true of the Precious Blood spilled on a purification, other cloth or even clothes. Once it dries it is no longer wine and thus no longer the Sacrament. What is your particular Eastern Orthodox Church belief about this, not only as it concerns the reserved Blessed Sacrament but also marriage, holy orders or any other sacrament?
With baptism, I think this idea goes back to St. Augustine, which is why it was not and is not the understanding outside of the Western Church. He thought that the “form” of baptism made it “valid.” Although he also thought that it might not be effectual when done outside the Church. His idea was expanded with Vatican II’s ecclesiological renovation so that now Catholicism sees all baptisms as valid and effectual. This is the basis for modern ecumenism and the idea of a common baptism among all Christians.
As I said, this is not the universal teaching by far. Rather, it is an attempt to do an end run around the “no salvation outside the Church” doctrine — by simply asserting everyone is somehow in the Church by virtue of baptism.
In Orthodoxy, we see the Church as the Body of Christ, so the sacraments only happen inside the Church. Baptism is only “valid” inside the Church, for example. So, if a priest leaves the Church, he’s no longer a priest. The East never adopted the ex opere operato idea or the indelible marks teachings of the West.
As for marriage, we don’t have the understanding that it is necessarily permanent since it could be broken through personal sin. When it is broken, the bishop, with the authority to bind and to loose, can loose the parties from the marriage for the good of their souls. Hence, why second marriages are allowed in some circumstances.
I don’t know the answer to the question what is done with the Eucharist. I think that the reserved Eucharist is typically consumed before time has elapsed. When that isn’t done, I suspect it is handled like all other holy things. For example, on Pascha, the priest blesses eggs. We put even the egg shells into a special container so they can be burned and buried since they were blessed. We tend to take those blessings pretty seriously and handle even refuse accordingly. So I think that the Eucharist would be handled similarly.
Just to add a bit on the Eucharist: We don’t keep as much in reserve as you all do. The clergy consume the remaining Eucharist after the people are communed. What is kept in reserve for emergencies is very minimal.
Marc, I think that the pope or a synod of bishops need to revisit the presumption that all Protestant baptisms are valid and by virtue of what you describe. I might be wrong, but I believe prior to Vatican II when Protestants were received into the Catholic Church, they received a “conditional” baptism which implies that perhaps their baptism was valid but the presumption is that it wasn’t. The formula for a conditional baptism is, “If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In the last couple of years that I was pastor, I began to offer all our candidates for full communion conditional baptism and that was because there were some major Catholic stories where a priest discovered that his own baptism was invalid and had proof of it from a video of his baby baptism. The priest or deacon changed the words of baptism from “I baptize you” to “We baptize you” and the Vatican deemed that change to be invalid, not just illicit. And that was under Pope Francis! So if priests and deacons were offering invalid baptism by changing words, how in the hell could we trust what Protestant ministers were doing or saying a baptism? So I began to conditionally baptize Protestants who became Catholic!
I think what my eastern rite parochial vicar said about marriage is that sin corrupted the Sacrament and it ceased to exist, but of course a bishop would have to declare that to be the case. I prefer that concept as it is better than the Latin Rite’s annulment procedure declaring no marriage ever existed due to improper consent at the time of marriage, like one or the other of the partners intending to commit adultery afterward or already doing so prior to the marriage, or mental illness compromised the sacramental nature of the consent. The Eastern Rites reserve the Sacrament in the same way as Orthodoxy and there isn’t the same piety around the Sacrament’s presence. But because the East uses leaven bread, corruption could occur more quickly through mold. Our unleavened “discs” last a lot longer maybe forever!
At my parish, everyone who enters the Church is baptized. Just seems a lot more straightforward to me: there’s no baptism outside the Church so trying to figure out whether they got the words right and all that doesn’t factor in. As a practical matter, how can someone outside the Church initiate someone into the Church? It makes no sense.
The annulment thing makes no sense when it is expanded beyond reality and exploited. Seems more honest to recognize that people sin sometimes and that it can be better for their salvation to end the marriage and sometimes to allow them to be married again. Its not ideal, but the Church exists to save people, not to ask them to endure the impossible.
Marc, if what you say is true is correct, your Orthodox Church would be correct. But orthodoxy is in schism with the truth and with that in particular, heretical I would say. The true Church in communion with the pope and the living magisterium of the Church have taught otherwise and even in pre-Vatican II times acknowledged that Protestant baptisms using water in the proper way and the right words might have valid baptism although the presumption was these were not. Vatican II, as you point out, clarified that. Therein lies the problem of Eastern Orthodoxy ossified in a time warp of not being in full communion with the true Church, but alas, you are in partial communion and your sacraments are valid, except those second marriages which the Catholic Church presumes are invalid because of a valid existing sacramental bond.
We don't really need a Vatican II to update things. As I said, it makes no sense to hold that baptisms outside the Church are actually an initiation into the Church—that’s a truly bizarre idea. No, it is much more consistent to say that the sacraments belong to the Church since it is a Theanthropic reality. There cannot be sacraments outside the Body of Christ, who came to earth to establish the Church as that body.
Being ossified, as you call it, is a feature, not a bug—as it evident from this discussion.
Of course you and your Schismatic Church believe these heretical beliefs otherwise you would not be in schismatic but fully united to the true Church which right now you have only partial unity. Welcome to the FSSPX mentality. It makes sense but also confirms your Church’s infantile errors.
Ha!
1,000 years ago your pope, enamored with his own delusions of grandeur, thought he knew better than the rest of the Church and went off on his own just like the SSPX is doing today. And now after a millennia of innovation and countless schisms and breakaways, Christianity in the West is divided into thousands of groups and individuals who all place their personal interpretations above the wisdom of the Fathers… it’s quite sad what happens when people walk away from the Church, but it is inevitable when pride takes precedence over Truth.
Except for that little saying by Jesus of a man divorces his wife and marries again he commits adultery.
Christ included an exception. So the Church has always understood that divorce is possible. This was true in the West and the East. Another example of innovation in the West.
Jesus of course was speaking about unlawful marriages at the time of marriage not some kind of sin that killed it. Deception? Below the age to give consent? Mental illness? Immaturaity? All these unlawful things is what the full Church in communion with the pope can be considered unlawful, even if the marriage takes place in the Church—thus the annulment procedure seeks evidence to prove the unlawfulness. This can be applied too to all those unlawful marriages the Orthodox allow when the lawful marriage is still in tact. But that’s what happens when bishops separate from the pope, they eventually do dumb things, like the Orthodox do, even ordain women deacons!
No He wasn’t speaking of “unlawful marriages,” and even a cursory review of the Fathers shows that.
This is what happens when you cut yourself off from the Church of the Holy Fathers.
Since Rome walked away from the Church, it has come up with all these innovations. This bizarre understanding of Christ’s words is one early example, along with the invention of Purgatory and all the associated errors.
Just as the Protestants constantly change, getting stranger and stranger, you Papal Protestants and your pope, the first Protestant, do the same.
And now you look at Christ’s Church, the Orthodox Church, still doing what it was doing when you left, and you can’t recognize it—because you have strayed so far. You even go on to criticize it for not adopting your errors!
"...baptisms outside the Church..." The blasphemous assumption here is that we can limit the "territory" of the Church. Every religion I know of had tried it - God always offers a reminder or a rebuke that our limitations are not His.
Marc’s sect of orthodoxy doesn’t accept the West as a Church or that we have any valid sacraments let alone baptism. His sect is more fundamentalist Protestant than Orthodox!
I’m a normal Orthodox Christian in communion with my bishop. I believe the same thing that each and every Orthodox Church teaches about baptism.
We don’t limit the territory of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. As such, it has boundaries. It is blasphemous for those outside the Body to simulate the sacraments that are found only within the Body.
The Church has no boundaries. It is catholic - universal.
Nonsense! Our Lord uses two distinct words, πορνεία (porneia) and μοιχεία (moicheia). Porneia refers to illicit unions, not adultery. This is an explanation, not an exception. This is brought out by the fact that our Lord's response was directed at how the question was presented by the pharisees. At the time there were two rabbinical schools who disagreed on the question. The School of Shammai took a rigorous view that a man could divorce only in the case of adultery. The School of Hillel took a lenient view that a man could divorce for any cause. The pharisees were trying to force Jesus to pick between these two schools. He denied both, insisting that what God has joined no one may separate. The Orthodox reading would have him siding with Shammai, negating everything else that he said. The Apostles recognized the absolute nature of our Lord's response by saying if this were so it would be better not to marry.
Nor was the strict interpretation of pornea and the impossibility of divorce and remarriage an innovation of the west. Although divorce was allowed in Roman civil law, the eastern Church did not accept it until the 9th century. Contrary to your claim, the consensus of the early Church Father was opposed to divorce and remarried. This includes Justin Martyr, Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus. St. Basil the Great was the exception and does not represent the earlier consensus.
Furthermore, the very ecclesiology of the Orthodox prevents them from calling the Latin west heretics since the eastern bishops hold no jurisdiction over western bishops or the western church. This could only be done by an ecumenical council. At best all the eastern bishops, according to their own theology, could do is not recognize the universal jurisdiction of the pope and break off communion.
For the Fathers, “porneia” means fornication. And it is certainly an exception.
I agree that the Church is opposed to divorce and remarriage. The Church is opposed to all forms of sin. But the Church also recognized that, despite that opposition, people do sin. When people sin through divorce, they are sometimes permitted to remarry. Just as Christ provided an example, he gave to the bishops the authority to bind and loose. So whether one is permitted to remarry is a decision for the bishop.
I’m not sure what your last paragraph means. Why would we have a council to condemn people who are outside the Church? The pope already excommunicated himself and accepted doctrines that were already condemned in the Eighth Ecumenical Council (which Rome accepted and later rejected — so much for that papal infallibility, huh?).
There is no need to have another council to discuss all the subsequent innovations that have arisen since all of that happened quite apart from the Church.
“Catholic” means “whole,” not universal: as in, “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” That means that where there is a successor to the apostles, there are the Sacraments and the right faith, which is all that is needed to work out salvation. That is what the word meant to the authors of the Creed.
Marc, maybe your sect of nationalistic Eastern Orthdoxy didn’t get the memo. The excommunications of the pope of the Eastern Patriarch and his of the pope were lifted in 1965. I know that is before you were born and goes against your sect’s rigidity of ossification. There were no self-excommunications.
Here it is for you if the excommunications were lifted from AI:
Yes, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches lifted their mutual excommunications on December 7, 1965, through a joint action by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I.The 1965 DeclarationThe Event: Pope Paul VI in Rome and Patriarch Athenagoras I in Istanbul simultaneously read a Catholic-Orthodox Joint Declaration.The Action: They revoked and "removed from memory" the 1054 anathemas (excommunications) that marked the split of the East–West Schism.The Goal: The gesture was meant to express mutual regret and start a "dialogue of love" rather than an immediate end to the schism.Current Status of RelationsNot Reunited: The lifting of the excommunications did not fully restore ecclesiastical communion.Ongoing Separation: The two churches remain administratively and theologically separate, and full sacramental sharing is not yet practiced.Continued Talks: Official theological dialogues and friendly meetings between modern popes and patriarchs continue to build on this 1965 step.
Marc, you failed to recognize the two different lungs of the Church of the West and the Church of the East which also existed in the Church prior to Eastern bishops (and certainly not all of them) went into schism and seperated themselves from the fullness of Catholicity’s two lungs—the schismatic East rejected an entire lung of the Church of the West, while the fullness of the true Church under the pope has maintained it especially with those Eastern Churches that did not go into schism and others who returned to the full communion of the pope in our Eastern Rites.
Here are both lungs of the one Church’s understanding of the word “catholic”:
The word catholic—from the Greek katholou, meaning "according to the whole" or "universal"—is understood by the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches through two different structural and mystical lenses: universal extension versus local wholeness.The Catholic Church (Universal Focus)Global Extension: Interprets "catholic" primarily as universal, meaning the Church is spread across the entire world, uniting all local communities under one visible head.Top-Down Unity: Views the universal Church as a single global body. Local dioceses are parts of the whole, and they derive their catholicity from being in full communion with the central worldwide authority of the Pope.The Eastern Orthodox Churches (Local Focus)Wholeness in Each Place: Interprets "catholic" (katholiki) as "whole," "complete," or "fullness" of faith, rather than just wide geographical spread.Eucharistic Wholeness: Teaches that a local eucharistic community (a bishop and his people gathered around the altar) fully embodies the entire Christ and the complete catholic Church.Network of Communities: Rejects a centralized global monolith; instead, local churches are fully catholic in themselves and achieve universal unity horizontally through a shared bond of identical faith and synodality among equal bishops.
The pope is not part of the Church: not a patriarch, not a bishop, not a priest, and not even a layman. He does not commune of the one Eucharist or participate in the Eucharistic synaxis. So... it would seem that the lifting of the excommunication by the EP in 1965 accomplished essentially nothing.
There is a rite for Roman Catholics who wish to enter the Orthodox Church wherein the person renounces the various errors of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps one day, a pope will be moved to do so, but alas, so far, the popes have remained intransigent.
This isn't rigidity: it is reality.
There are not two lungs in the Church. The Church is an undivided and indivisible whole. That is why there is one faith, one baptism, and one Eucharist -- of which everyone in the Church partakes. Unfortunately, there are those who leave this unity and those who reject the call to join the Body of Christ.
Orthodoxy does not reject the western part of the Church: we commemorate all the western saints and treasure the writings of the Holy Fathers of the West.
Marc, as I know you to be a person of intellect and reason, I am shocked you have checked your brain and intellect at the door of your sect’s “ Protestant fundamentalism “. Not all Eastern Orthodox hold such nonsense and you know it. I am starting to believe you have associated yourself with a cult, like many Protestant fundamentalists and certain sects within Mormonism.
No, you just don't know very much about Orthodoxy, but I am happy to have the opportunity to tell you here in these comments. Rest assured, I believe the same thing that all Orthodox believe.
As a very recent example, what I am telling you here comes from St. Justin Popovich. He reposed in 1979 and was canonized in 2010.
Marc it is your brainwashing that limits your understanding of Eastern Orthodoxy. Again AI can fill in what has been drained out:
These are results for do all eastern orthodox churches believe the Roman Catholic Church has invalid sacraments?
Search instead for do all eastern orthodoc churches believe the Roman Catholic Church has invalid sacreaments?
AI Overview
No, Eastern Orthodox churches do not share a single, uniform official stance on the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments, opinions vary significantly across different jurisdictions and theologians.
Orthodox Church in America (OCA)
Diverse Orthodox Perspectives
Strict / Economy-Based Views: Some bishops and traditionalist groups argue that because grace and true sacraments exist only within the canonical bounds of the Orthodox Church, Catholic sacraments are technically void or "empty" outside of it. Converts or clergy coming from Catholicism are sometimes received via full baptism or conditional re-ordination, reflecting this strict view.
Reddit
·Patristic Nectar
+4
Pragmatic / Historical Practice: Many autocephalous Orthodox churches (such as the Orthodox Church in America) historically or locally accept Roman Catholic baptism or receive Catholic clergy by "vesting" (without re-ordaining them), which implies a recognition of the underlying validity of their holy orders and sacraments.
Orthodox Church in America (OCA)
+1
Validity vs. Efficacy: A common theological distinction in Orthodoxy separates validity (the outward form or apostolic succession) from efficacy (the active working of grace). Many theologians argue that while grace is confined fully to the Orthodox Church, God may still economically and mysteriously apply grace through outside rites.
We don't rely on AI as a source of doctrinal understanding in Orthodoxy. But I see where you (and your AI) are getting confused.
It is true that, in some instances, people are received into the Church through Chrismation rather than baptism. And it is true that clergy from outside the Church have been received through vesting rather than ordination. This is not because the Church sees the prior baptism or ordination as valid. And that is not "implied" as the AI suggests.
We have two concepts that are important to note on this topic: law/strictness and economy. According to the law/strictness, there are no sacraments outside the Church. But, as a matter of economy, a bishop may receive a convert through Chrismation or clergy through vesting as an economy. That decision is up to the bishop. We see the use of economy not as a recognition of sacraments outside the Church, rather it is through the means ordered by the bishop that those "forms" that happened outside the Church are given sacramental character.
No, porneia means any illicit union, but even if we were to take your restricted definition you are still proving my point. An illicit union after marriage is not fornication; it is adultery. That our Lord uses porneia and not morcheia (adultery) implies that that he is speaking of someone who is not married, otherwise it would be adultery, not merely fornication. Fornication can only be committed by someone who is not married. Thus our Lord was not talking about a sin by a married person that can dissolve marriage. He was talking about a couple who were in an illicit union and not married.
Again, the Orthodox understanding would have our Lord agreeing with Shammai. Notice how the pharisees respond to Jesus: "They said to him, 'Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?' " The understood clearly as saying that a man could no longer divorce his wife, not even for adultery. This is also what the apostles understood when they said that was better not to marry. And this was the understanding of the eastern Church until the 9th century.
Marc,
My point was that according to Orthodox ecclesiology all bishops are equal and the faithful are subject to their local bishops. Thus the eastern bishops have no jurisdiction or authority to declare the western bishops and laity heretics and therefore outside of the Church. All that they can honestly declare is that they disagree with their fellow bishops and that the issues are in dispute until they can be settled a the universal level, i.e., at an ecumenical council. The eastern bishops cannot arrogate to themselves the authority to speak for the entire Church.
That’s an interesting point. Would you agree this also applies in the opposite way?
Rather than continuing to haggle, I’ll direct your attention to his article that addresses this topic (satisfactorily, to me):
https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2020/01/05/church-fathers-and-patristic-era-writers-on-the-topic-of-divorce-and-remarriage-a-florilegium/
No, because I believe in the papacy.
Have you read the Chieti Document, by chance? The authors of this Vatican document don’t seem to believe in the papacy the way you do.
“[T]he bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.”
https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese1.html
Anthony, more importantly, the Most Holy Trinity believes in the papacy and guided its development over the course of centuries.
The development of the papacy required the use of forged documents to shore up its false claims. God doesn’t work through such dishonesty.
It is to laugh Marc when you look at all the corruption in the Church of the Esst prior to their schism and certainly after. I put my trust in the redeeming sanctification of the Most Holy Trinity. You can keep your trust in your Protestant Fundamentalism masked by Eastern Schismatic sentiments.
I’m not sure you’d want to get involved in a discussion on corruption in the Roman Catholic Church…
Oh, I think there’s enough corruption to go around. Let’s start with the Esstern Schism which is an insult to Our Lord and the Church He founded and built upon the first Pope and his successors. Then let’s go to the corrupt insults of your sect of Orthodoxy . That the Lord’s visible Vicar and visible head of the Entire Church Jesus founded isn’t validly baptized and ordained by Our Lord. Yes, let talk about the corruption of the East’s schism, its acts of hatred for the entire Western Church and the mortal sins against Our Lord and Faith, hope and charity.
Marc,
It is true that words can often have broader and equivocal meanings but this is not always the case. Thus, appeal by others cannot resolve the question. Context provides the meaning, something that the author of Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia ignored. The particular context opens with the Pharisees asking our Lord if a man can divorce his wife for "any cause whatever." This is important. They came to Jesus with the Jewish understanding that divorce was permitted by the Mosaic Law. What was in dispute were the justifications. Shammai held that it was justified only in the case of adultery. This is basically the position of the Orthodox. Hillel, on the other hand, put no limitations on divorce. The Pharisees were trying it get our Lord to choose between the two.
Then we have our Lord's response, that what God has joined no one may separate, thus rejecting both Shammai and Hillel and denying the possibility of divorce. That this is what he meant is clear from the response of the Pharisees:: "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss her?" They understood that Jesus had just rejected the Law of Moses that allowed divorce.
Jesus responds: "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." In rejecting the allowance for divorce our Lord is restoring what was the original plan of God.
It is only her, after he has already rejected the Mosaic provision for divorce, that the question of porneia comes up. It is thus an explanation of what was previously said, not an exception. In this context the porneia applies to the couple themselves, not to an act of the wife that would justify divorce. Otherwise, everything that he said before would make no sense, and he would have simply said divorce is only acceptable for the reason of adultery, and thus side with Shammai.
That our Lord had just overturned the Mosaic Law is also clear from the response of his disciples: "If that is the case with a man and his wife, it is better not to marry." Thus both the Pharisees and the disciples understood Jesus as forbidding divorce and remarriage.
With regard to the early Church Fathers, the author proves too much. All he can show is that there were different opinions, not that they were united in accepting divorce and remarriage. This would not become universally accepted in the east until the late 9th century when Emperor Leo VI passed a law making the Church the sole legal authority for certifying and officiating marriages. This forced the Church to fully absorb the state’s civil realities, prompting canonists to pastoralize divorce under the framework of Oikonomia (pastoral mercy).
There is a common conceit among many of the Orthodox that they hold the unchanged and unsullied apostolic faith and that any differences with Catholics must be the result of innovations in the west. In the case of divorce it is clear that it is the west that has held on to the original teaching of Jesus and that it is the east that has succumbed to civil pressure and relaxed it.
I appreciate that you actually read the article and provided a well-reasoned response rather than merely hurling names at me like another commenter has been doing.
I think that the fact that there was a divergence of opinion is meaningful in itself because it shows that there is not necessarily one way to exegete the passage. For what it's worth, I disagree with your exegesis, but I won't belabor the point by providing my own analysis.
As a practical matter, obviously, I agree with the Orthodox position that divorce is sinful and tragic, but that economy might in some instances suggest that allowing for remarriage following divorce is better than unchosen celibacy. And without going into this rabbit trail, I disagree with the Roman Catholic manipulation of annulments as a guise for divorce as unprincipled and Pharisaical.
We've established, by use of your own church's official document, that the Bishop of Rome lacked canonical authority in the East in the first millennium. You appear to agree that the modern papacy is a "development," meaning it is not found in the first millennium.
The East has continued to believe and do exactly the same that your church itself reports was the practice of the united Church. Unfortunately, the West left the Church, instead choosing to place the pope in the place of Christ as the Head of the Church. It is not the Church's fault that current pope isn't baptize or ordained: it's not even his fault, really, considering the historical circumstances. But it is the reality of the situation.
For what it's worth, I, too, am uncomfortable with the apparent laxity that is used with annulments but this is a recent phenomenon. In any case, the reasoning behind annulments is sound and abuse does not take away use.
Yes, I also agree that the reasoning behind annulments is sound. And I think that is a commonality between our churches.
I guess that you have never heard of Pope Leo the Great, Athanasius' appeal to Pope Julius, or of the Formula of Pope Hormisdas. I also remind you that the decrees of the ecumenical councils were not considered authoritative until ratified by the pope. The Bishop of Rome always maintained his universal authority over the Church and this was universally recognized by the western bishops. The eastern bishops of the first millennium were inconsistent, sometime they recognized it and sometimes they did not.
I see you are still holding on to the idea that the sacraments of the Catholic Church are not valid. When, I ask you, did the universal church proclaim this? If all bishops are equal, then the eastern bishops do not have the authority on their own to declare the western bishop heretical and outside of the Church.
St. Leo is a great example: the council examined his Tome for Orthodoxy before acclaiming it. They don’t just take his word for it because he was the bishop of Rome. As for St. Athanasius, there’s no question that clerics could appeal to Rome: hearing such appeals was its canonical role.
We don’t believe in your ratification theory regarding Councils as it is an historical anachronism.
As for your concluding paragraph, I think the issue is that you don’t quite understand the Orthodox paradigm (I sincerely don’t mean that rudely). The Church proclaims the pope is outside the Church when the Patriarchs cease commemorating him in the Liturgy. There’s no need for a council to accomplish this. This is reinforced by the synodikon that contains the anathemas against various papal errors and the way that Roman Catholics are received into the Church. For us, liturgical praxis is basically on par with any other level of teaching authority in the Church.
It is not controversial in the slightest to say that there are no sacraments outside the Church. It is inherent in Orthodox ecclesiology, which is admittedly different than your ecclesiology.
The Patriarchs are merely local bishops. They do not exercise a joint authority over the Church and do not collectively speak in the name of the Church. You also forget that the Pope is himself a Patriarch. As for commemorating the Pope in the liturgy, he is commemorated by the entire western Church and also those eastern Churches that are in communion with the pope. There is no universal authority that has declared the pope and the western Church heretical. All you are doing is elevating the opinion of some of the eastern bishops over the entire Church, thus denying your own contention that all bishops are equal.
Marc this is getting silly
All bishops are equal, but your pope is not a bishop (and consequently, not a patriarch). The pope is commemorated in the West, but of course, the liturgies in which he’s commemorated aren’t in communion with the Church. The authority of the Church has declared the Western Church heretical.
This isn’t hard to understand, so I sense you’re trying to make (what you think is) some clever point. On the off chance you’re making a genuine point, I’d point you to the 1848 Encyclical of the Patriarchs, which is seen as an authoritative document and summarizes some of Rome’s errors.
I find it interesting that you all are so concerned about what a Church that you’re not part of thinks about your sacraments.
Oh, I know! It all started because I answered a question (correctly). Then people started lobbing absurd and ignorant statements against the Church. Since from time to time, it seems like there are genuine questions being asked, I tried to answer. And now folks are mad about what how my Church understands your Church. The worst part are the constant accusations that I’m making this up and couldn’t possibly be faithfully relating what the Church teaches!
You are missing my point. The Patriarchs only have authority over their own patriarchates. They do not, even collectively, have authority over the whole Church. Thus the eastern Patriarchs do not have the authority to declare that the Pope is not a bishop or that he is out of communion with the Church. All any of them can declare, and this individually, is that he and the Pope are not in communion and that they disagree on a topic. The Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Moscow, etc., speak only for their own respective patriarchates, not for the entire Church.
The 1848 Encyclical of the Patriarchs only expresses the opinions of those individual patriarchs in a dispute within the Church. It is not an expression of the universal Church.
Presently the Patriarch of Moscow has broken communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople and does not commemorate him in the liturgy. Is the latter a member of Church and is he a valid bishop?
I’m not missing your point: I’m disagreeing with your premise. No one has authority over the whole Church except Christ. When the other patriarchs excluded Rome from communion, that was Rome being cut off from the Church. That’s how these things work…
The encyclical is an expression of the universal Church because it’s been accepted as such by the Church. Again, you seem to be assuming the Western Church’s paradigm is correct. That’s fine, but that’s not our system.
Moscow is still in communion with the other patriarchs. So not analogous.
Marc, you are missing the point, missing logic and neglecting the fact that the West excommunicated the East which would put the East in the same predicament you say the West is from a schismatic group of bishops who more often disagreed with each other more so than Rome. Everyone then loses their Sacrament status, baptism, Confirmation, valid Eucharist, valid priesthood, valid marriages, valid Unction and whatever is need for the Church to exist. This there is no Church period, according to you logic. You need to join a radical sect of Mormonism at this point. And I remind you that the Eastern Orthodox began the development of the theology and doctrines of Ecumenism in the 1920’s, which interestingly enough, is when some Protestants were reacting towards the Enlightenment and the fact that so much of Protestantism had gone radically liberal accommodating the Enlightenment’s vision for the world. At that point Protestant Fundamentalism was developing for the first time and as you Eastern Orthodox danced with them in your early 1920 ecumenical endeavors, the East was infected with the anti-Catholic, anti-papal acrimony of these Protestant Fundamentalists who also saw Rome as the Whore of Rome. I don’t blame you Marc for your nonsense that you spew in support of your sect’s version of Eastern Orthodoxy, but I hope you see how Protestant Fundamentalism infected some of your Eastern Orthodox Nationalistic Churches with their anti-Catholic sentiments. That’s what happens to sects who separate from the Full Communion of the Church and Christ’s Vicar, the visible head of the Church on earth. Old Catholics experience the influences of liberal Protestantism, your sect that is Fundamentalist Protestants. Your sect changed and developed under your doctrine of ecumenism with Protestants.
Yes, the West also excommunicated the East, but you all have a different understanding of ecclesiology and sacraments than we do, so the same conclusion doesn’t follow. The question, essentially, is which side was correct: I believe the East was correct; you think the West was correct. I believe what I believe because I see that the historical evidence supports that conclusion in that the East is historically aligned with the belief and practice of the united first millennium Church and the West is not.
It’s hard to follow the rest of what you’re saying due to your obsession with Protestantism and refusal to accept that what I’m saying is simply what Orthodox believe and not some fringe sectarian view.
If you go back and read the polemics from our saints regarding Rome — from centuries before the Reformation until the present days — you’ll find that I am saying what they say.
Finally, Orthodoxy has not changed or developed under a “doctrine of Ecumenism.” That’s total nonsense and pure gaslighting considering how Rome reconfigured everything about its praxis and ecclesiology for ecumenist purposes — that’s pretty much what your whole blog is about
No, when the other patriarchs excluded Rome for communion all they did was exclude them from communion with their own local churches; they did not, and can not, speak with the authority of the whole Church. Nor was the encyclical an expression of the whole Church. It was only the expression of those eastern bishops not in communion with Rome. I remind you that there are some eastern bishops who are in communion with Rome. You seem to think that the eastern bishops have a charism that is not shared with the western bishops. What happened to "all bishops are equal"? All the schism did was split the Church; it did not expel the Rome and it adherents from the Church. The eastern bishops by themselves just do not have that authority.
I'm not sure what else I can add beyond what I've already said... So, I'll try to be precise. No bishop has authority over the entire Church. Bishops have authority within their diocese. Bishops also have the task of recognizing communion with other bishops, and this is usually done through communion with their patriarch or metropolitan (the bishop who is first in honor of the local synod). The way we think about the communion between the autocephalous Churches is that when one Church looks at another, it sees the other Church as if looking in a mirror: meaning that each Church has the same beliefs and praxis (that is, they are recognizable to each other).
This communion is expressed thusly: priests commemorate the local bishop, who commemorates the patriarch, who commemorates the other patriarchs and heads of autocephalous Churches. Conversely, the lack of communion is expressed by cessation of commemoration.
In this instance, every patriarch ultimately ceased commemoration of the bishop of Rome, expressing the lack of communion between him and the other patriarchs. At that point, the Church was split via schism. Oftentimes schisms are healed after some period of time. Here, it wasn't.
Over time, as Rome became more and more unrecognizable to the other Churches: the other Churches continued doing what they'd always done, and Rome continued to change. Over time it has become clear that Rome teaches things that are anathema to Orthodoxy, and despite the attempted reunifications, Rome has remained unwilling to recant those errors. We are looking at more than schism here; we are talking about heresy, which separates one from the Church.
This is the Orthodox consensus -- it is evident from the lack of liturgical commemoration, the inclusion of Roman Catholic errors in the anathemas of the Synodikon, the way that Roman Catholics are received into the Church, the persistent writings and statements from our Holy Fathers, etc. For us, this is how the authority of the whole Church is expressed.
I appreciate your engagement in this conversation. You have brought forward arguments and points that I have never considered before, which caused me to have to think very hard about the proper responses. I think we have properly identified the impasse here, which I would say comes down ultimately to how our churches conceptualize authority.
Personally, having been Roman Catholic for a time and converting to Orthodoxy years ago, I have no doubt about the veracity of Orthodox ecclesiology as compared to Roman Catholic ecclesiology, so I am neither convinced nor moved in the slightest by your arguments. But I do think they're novel and interesting as I've never encountered them before in any of the many Papist/Orthodox debates and exchanges I've seen.
Schism, yes; heresy, no. Heresy is more than simple error. It is the contemptuous denial or refusal to accept church teaching. The bishops of the east and west disagree on certain teachings. From the point of view of the Orthodox, there has been no universal church authority that has resolved these disputes. All that they can do is say that they disagree with their western brethren. They are quite free to say that Catholics are in error, but they do not have the authority on their own to declare that half of the Church is heretical and thus placed outside of the Church. This is quite simple.
Where you're wrong is saying "[f]rom the point of view of the Orthodox, there has been no universal church authority that has resolved these disputes." From your perspective, you don't accept that authority, but that doesn't mean that, from our perspective, it doesn't exist. I already provided some of the points of authority on this. There are others: the Eighth and Ninth Councils condemned various Latin errors, and the Councils of Constantinople and Jerusalem.
For clarification, what is your point, exactly? Are you suggesting that Orthodox see Roman Catholics as inside the Church? Or are you attacking the idea that the Orthodox somehow lack the authority to say who is and who is not inside the Church? I'm confused by what you're trying to get at since you seem to be unable to conceptualize this from a perspective that is not your own -- it seems like you're overarching point is with the Orthodox system, maybe?
I can’t speak for Anthony, but my problem is with you believing what some orthodox bishops teach (and not all by any means) that the Western Church to include the universal pastor of the West and the East don’t have valid sacraments and aren’t even ordained. That is absurd. The Catholic Church and her pope continues to be both East and West—it’s the Orthodox who don’t accept that and have made heretical, heterodox statements about the validity of our sacraments that they as individuals or collectively don’t have since they don’t have any western bishops in union with them. Yes, the Orthodox on their own have no authority to make such silly, heterodox claims but they certainly have and do and thus they are fortunate that it isn’t Catholic teaching in anyway whatsoever to declare valid sacraments of the orthodox Church as invalid. If the Church had that authority the pope would definitely have said the Orthodox don’t have valid sacraments because of certain sects, not all of course, Eastern Church heresies concerning the West.
What I am trying to say is quite simple. No ecumenical council has condemned the western church. All the gatherings of the eastern bishops are merely local councils. Even the Orthodox agree that they cannot have an ecumenical council without the participation of the pope.
And yes, I am attacking the idea that the Orthodox, i.e., the eastern bishops, lack the authority on their own to say who is and who is not inside the Church. All they can declare on their own is with whom they are in communion. A local church cannot claim the authority of the entire church. Why is this so hard to understand?
It is not correct to say that "Orthodox agree that they cannot have an ecumenical counsel without the participation of the pope." The 9th Ecumenical Council was held without the participation of the pope, for example. We don't have ecumenical councils now because there is no emperor, and it is the emperor who calls councils. We have local synods that can obtain ecumenical status on the basis of their reception by the whole Church -- see the formerly mentioned councils of Constantinople and Jerusalem as examples.
Since the Orthodox bishops are the collective leaders of the Church, when they declare who they are in communion with, that is the declaration of who is within the Church.
I suspect this is hard to understand for you because it seems to be difficult for you to conceptualize something that doesn't accept your presuppositions.
But I definitely agree with this statement, "A local church cannot claim the authority of the entire church." And I'm heartened that you agree!
Fr. McDonald: "[T]hey don’t have any western bishops in union with them."
My bishop is in Chicago.
Funnily enough, I don't think any Orthodox person would care if your pope said our sacraments weren't valid since no one cares what the pope's opinion is on things in the Church. (I certainly don't care.) Yet, you seem very concerned about my Church's view of your sacraments... Curious!
Since I was once your pastor who validly baptized, chrismated and offered you the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in Holy Communion, I am very concerned about the salvation of your soul as you have not only gone into schism but joined a sect of Eastern Orthodoxy that has brought you into verifiable heresy and blasphemy. You should be as concerned about your apostasy as I am. But yes, most Roman Catholics don’t give a flip about Protestant Fundamentalism and by way of extension your brand of it with an Eastern Orthodox overlay.
I appreciate your concern (not being sarcastic). And since you continue to seem skeptical about this, I once again reiterate that I am not giving you "my brand" of Orthodoxy. I'm telling you what the Orthodox Church teaches.
If you're inclined, the works of recent saints testify to this: St. Justin Popovich [Serbian] (reposed 1979), St. Paisios [Greek] (reposed 1994), and St. Seraphim Rose [American] (reposed 1982) come immediately to mind. Also, the practice on Mt. Athos is to baptize Roman Catholics entering the Church. (Obviously, Mt. Athos is the center, of sorts, of Orthodox Christianity).
I know a few Eastern Orthodox Christian’s and when they ask me when visiting if they can receive Holy Communion, I say yes as long as they are in a state of grace and they come forward. I have never heard of mainline Eastern Orthodoxy holding the radical, heretical and blasphemous beliefs you attribute to all of Orthodoxy. Maybe your priests and laity simply roll their eyes at such idiocy.
That you've never heard of it says nothing about the veracity of what I'm telling you. I've given you the writings of saints and the praxis of the Church that confirm what I'm saying. So now you know!
How did a secular prince gain power over the Church that he is required for the calling of an ecumenical council? And who is "the whole Church"? How can the western Church be excluded from that definition?
The Eastern Orthodox Church is wrong according to the Pope, head of the Catholic Church, East and west and the bishops of the East and West in union with His Holiness. We have on our side the truth—you have on your side an ossified institution fragmented by nations and other radical groups within. Only one Church is right and that is the true Church where the Pope and bishops of the east and west are in union with His Holiness. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches. Evidently the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t and in addition to that it is not only in schism, but also heretical and blasphemous. It’s worse that I thought. Only one of our Churches is right—and it’s not yours.
No one seems to have found it odd that the emperor was calling the councils. Rome sent legates to some of those councils, that is, when they weren't in schism as they were during the Second Ecumenical Council where the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was defined.
It's remarkable -- the doctrine of the Trinity was defined at a council where the pope sent no legates and was in schism with St. Meletius of Antioch, who presided over the council. More problematically for your position, St. Meletius died while out of communion with Rome; yet, he is considered a saint in your church.
This entire conversation is about how the Western Church can be excluded from the definition of the "whole Church."
So, to respond to Fr. McDonald, perhaps you aren't aware of all of this history. But some people are. And it is this sort of understanding of historical fact that, to me, plainly shows the rightness of my Church. It is sad that more people aren't aware of the centuries of lies from Rome -- this history that isn't taught or is brushed aside and all the forged documents that are never mentioned.
Post a Comment