eastern Catholics

[athanasius]

Sorry, I try to translate things from my language into English and then it all gets mixed up. What I was trying it to say that your expression of the acceptance of the pope as the "leader" (pardon the simplification) in the Catholic faith supports on, amongst others, the Unam Sanctam bull, which I am sure you know of, being a theology student and all. However, the Catholic Church itself has no long tradition of obliging its members to accept the pope as the one and true leader with an unfalsifiable speech (which in history we call "invented tradition"). Instead, the Catholic Church does have a long tradition of Ecumenical Councils, which has steadily declined over the past couple of centuries. Basing the membership requirements on accordance with the pope does not cover the whole package, that's what I wanted to say. Because the Anglican Church is a very good example of a denomination where the importance of "Ecumenical Councils" (or the variance thereof) is still prominent.

And peace to you too, in good faith.

Actually the Papacy goes all the way to Peter. (See Webster Encyclopedia) So my reason for this is biblical exegesis(Matt 16:13-19 , and historical the early fathers and councils(Like the Tome Of Pope St Leo at the council of Chalcedon) Not from Unam sacntum. In the Catholic Church ecumenicals councils are important too. Second vatican coucil the last of these so far was a very important council. As a matter of fact, an Ecumenical council is not an ecumenical council without being ratified by the Pope or his Authoritative legates.

 

[lombas]

Actually the Papacy goes all the way to Peter. (See Webster Encyclopedia) So my reason for this is biblical exegesis(Matt 16:13-19 , and historical the early fathers and councils(Like the Tome Of Pope St Leo at the council of Chalcedon) Not from Unam sacntum. In the Catholic Church ecumenicals councils are important too. Second vatican coucil the last of these so far was a very important council. As a matter of fact, an Ecumenical council is not an ecumenical council without being ratified by the Pope or his Authoritative legates.

I'm not saying the pope did not used to have a considerable power, I'm saying there was a huge clash between those in favor of a pope with authoritative power and those that lay the authoritative power in the ecumenical council. This last thing lives on in the Anglican Church, where the bishop of Canterbury does not have any power over the ecumenical council itself.

 

[athanasius]

I'm not saying the pope did not used to have a considerable power, I'm saying there was a huge clash between those in favor of a pope with authoritative power and those that lay the authoritative power in the ecumenical council. This last thing lives on in the Anglican Church, where the bishop of Canterbury does not have any power over the ecumenical council itself.

Do you understand that there have been 21 ecumenical councils in history so far. The anglicans have called or ratified none of them. Anglicans and the anglican church actually have nothing to do with any ecumenical council. When you said ecumenical, I assume you really meant "regional protestant(Anglican) so-called councils"(Not really ecumenical).

The anglican s were not present in any of the Ecumenical councils such as Nicea, Chalcedon etc. The Anglican church wasn't invented yet. Today they still are not part of them. Their bishops for the most part are really lay people with no apostolic Authority to even call a council.

 

[Quiddity]

*RAISES HANDS*
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS SECTION OF THE FORUM IS TO UNDERSTAND CATHOLICISM. BE WARY OF IT TURNING INTO A DEBATE.​

 

[James the Persian]

Do you understand that there have been 21 ecumenical councils in history so far. The anglicans have called or ratified none of them. Anglicans and the anglican church actually have nothing to do with any ecumenical council. When you said ecumenical, I assume you really meant "regional protestant(Anglican) so-called councils"(Not really ecumenical).

The anglican s were not present in any of the Ecumenical councils such as Nicea, Chalcedon etc. The Anglican church wasn't invented yet. Today they still are not part of them. Their bishops for the most part are really lay people with no apostolic Authority to even call a council.

You realise that we can say almost identical things with regards to Roman Catholics? (Indeed we do say similar with regards to the post-Schism councils you claim to be ecumenical - which were decidedly regional Latin councils)and could say things like the RCC was not represented at any of the Ecumenical Councils because the RCC did not exist prior to the Schism and is both schismatic and heretical. I'm not saying this to provoke an argument with you but to hopefully show you that no matter how convincing you find the sorts of arguments you made, they only work at all from an a priori assumption that Rome is correct, an assumption the Anglicans would not share. Of course, from our perspective, you all have only the form of Apostolic Succession rather than succession per se as true Apostolic Succession requires unaltered transmission of the faith delivered to the Apostles, which we certainly don't believe to be the case for Rome or any of the churches that split from her.

James

 

[Doodlebug02]

My boyfriend is an Eastern Rite Catholic. I think he is either Maronite or Melkite. I think he is Maronite but I am not certain.

Anyway, couldn't we rename the forum to Vatican Catholic or something like that?

 

[Ðanisty]

*CLOSED FOR MOD REVIEW*
​