- Mar 11, 2003
- 11,796
- 8,174
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's what I thought as well.I actually heard that the first ex cathedra statement was that they could make ex cathedra statements, and the second was concerning Mary's Immaculate Conception. could be wrong on those, though.
Indeed He is risen!Good question.
As I understand it there have been only TWO ex-cathedra definitions since Vatican I: the dogmatizing of the bodily Assumption of the Theotokos, which we already knew, and the declaration by John Paul II that women could not be ordained to the presbyterate or episcopate, which we also already knew.
As a matter of history, the Chalcedonian Patriarchate of Antioch was for centuries in a state of double communion with both Old and New Romes. This continued until the 17th century when both Romes made an issue of it.
Keep in mind that contrary to Protestant polemicists, papal infallibility is so carefully defined and limited as to make its exercise impossible in quotidian or even frivolous matters.
Christ is risen!
Stop playing at being Orthodox and become Orthodox already. Sheesh!HONK! Your wrong! We follow the beliefs and practices of Eastern Orthodoxy.
No, I would not disagree. But this was BEFORE V1.Indeed He is risen!
I understand that it is exercised carefully and is limited, but it still is a valid question in regards to Monk Brendan's post imho. Whether it is common or not - accepting papal infallibility (ex cathedra) does have a potential impact on theology.
Also, I've always read that the immaculate conception was a statement in ex cathedra. Would you disagree with that?
Yep, I agree that it was before Vatican 1.No, I would not disagree. But this was BEFORE V1.
Christ is risen!
If Pope Francis makes a statement in Ex Cathedra, do you need to accept it in some form? Or at least accept that it can be interpreted in an "orthodox" way?
Also, that should have read, "You're wrong", seeing as you want to get picky about spelling.
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I will pray for you, and for myself that God will NOT make me a good, observant, willing to serve, and loving my neighbor as I love myself Orthodox Christian like you.
In a book I have, published by ROCOR, it is written, "Orthodoxy of faith and life, and not jurisdictional dependence, is the criterion for recognizing a true Orthodox Church. I'm sorry you don't attend such a church
You have reached the end of the olive branch. You are just another Catholic Basher, and I pity your pastor, who must be pulling out his beard by the roots because of all the hatred that is floating around in that Church.
Christ is Risen!
What she said.Monk Brendan
Please be aware that you are a guest in this board [ as am I - and I'm a Ukrainian Catholic ! ]
I've been posting here for many years and believe me I'll continue posting here.
ArmyMatt is NOT a Catholic Basher - and language like that is not tolerated here.
Anhelyna - Ambassador Member
I think maybe Monk Brendan is mostly upset because the term papist is generally thought of (at least in the U.K., perhaps not in the US?) as a derogatory/disparaging term that Catholics (usually Roman Catholics) take offence (sorry offense!) to? Everyone's comments/observations to him are correct and their questions to him are valid, but perhaps the actual word papist was what he took exception to? Apologies if I have this wrong.for one, my pastor and bishop say the same thing. for two, the loving thing to do to the heretic, is to point out the heresy.
and my confessor pulls his hair out in frustration because of me, but not because of my stance on Rome and those in her communion.
no need to take personal cheap shots, come on now.
I think maybe Monk Brendan is mostly upset because the term papist is generally thought of (at least in the U.K., perhaps not in the US?) as a derogatory/disparaging term that Catholics (usually Roman Catholics) take offence (sorry offense!) to? Everyone's comments/observations to him are correct and their questions to him are valid, but perhaps the actual word papist was what he took exception to? Apologies if I have this wrong.
Did not know this.I think "Papist" in the UK carries a much more stronger sense of insult than it does in America.
ArmyMatt is NOT a Catholic Basher - and language like that is not tolerated here.
Apologies Matt, I didn't take note of who first used the term. I would have thought that to be in communion with Rome a denomination would need to accept RC doctrines such as Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility, but I may be wrong about that.he might have, and maybe because he thought we were just lumping him in with the Latin rite and all their theological weirdness. that was why I said it is to be in communion with Rome, whether or not you agree with Rome.
and I was not the one who originally called him a Papist, I simply defined the word.
In the U.K. Churches list themselves as Roman Catholic, so I don't think it is considered offensive over here. Papist would, however, be considered offensive.Did not know this.
I was told by a good friend (so no acrimony) that referring to them as "Roman" Catholics was considered offensive by some (and these were Latin, Western-rite, whatever you'd call it?) so I've since tried to be sensitive in the words I use, but other than just "Catholic" that doesn't seem to leave any very descriptive term?
I guess it can be hard to sort out ... ? There have been some times and places in history when Catholics have been on one end or the other of some serious issues, so I suspect there is more history of offense to draw on, that some of us might be unaware of.In the U.K. Churches list themselves as Roman Catholic, so I don't think it is considered offensive over here. Papist would, however, be considered offensive.
Absolutely! Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I - lots of martyrs on both Catholic and Church of England sides. Foxe's book of martyrs. Gunpowder Plot. An interesting period of History!A good bit of English history I was taught in school had to do with Catholic vs. Protestant (Church of England?) rulers and all the fallout from that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?