Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1842988' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:38 PM']peace[/quote]
We will have to agree to disagree.

God grant you many joyful years,
Todd

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1842977' date='Apr 21 2009, 07:13 PM']Trent's teaching on icons and relics is erroneous. It says that there is no "divinity" within icons and relics, and that assertion is contrary to the teaching of Nicaea II and the patristic tradition, which hold that divine energy (i.e., divinity or godhead) is present in icons and relics.[/quote]

So an infallible council is in error? If its not a council, at the least it must be an exercise of the universal ordinary magisterium and be infallible. But its in error?

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1842980' date='Apr 21 2009, 07:17 PM']When the Ukrainians and Ruthenians, and later the Melkites, entered into communion with Rome, the bishop of Rome did not require their acceptance of those councils in the union treaties. Thus, the Eastern Catholic Churches did not accept those councils upon entering into communion with Rome.

Although it is historically important to note that the Roman Curia later made such demands, and most Eastern Catholics in the 18th and 19th centuries caved in to the pressure exerted upon them, but happily those days are over.[/quote]

The entirety of the Church submitted to the Council after it was finished. What it does it matter that the schismatics and heretics did not? Why do they suddenly get a say in the council after the fact when they were not a part of because of their own actions?

Moreover, the Eastern Churches have submitted to the council in the past. Why can they suddenly change their minds and declare the council no longer valid.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1842994' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:46 PM']Moreover, the Eastern Churches have submitted to the council in the past. Why can they suddenly change their minds and declare the council no longer valid.[/quote]
Eastern Catholics did not submit to the Latin Church councils originally, and then they were forced to do so against their wills, and now they have returned to their original position.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1842994' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:46 PM']So an infallible council is in error? If its not a council, at the least it must be an exercise of the universal ordinary magisterium and be infallible. But its in error?[/quote]
Trent isn't infallible, and so the contradictory position that you propose (i.e., of saying that an infallible council taught error) does not follow.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1843027' date='Apr 21 2009, 09:03 PM']Eastern Catholics did not submit to the Latin Church councils originally, and then they were forced to do so against their wills, and now they have returned to their original position.[/quote]

The divine assent of faith, firm assent of will and intellect, and religious assent are all acts of [b]will[/b]...

You can't make an act of will unwillingly.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Resurrexi

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1842989' date='Apr 21 2009, 07:40 PM']We will have to agree to disagree.[/quote]

yes

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1842989' date='Apr 21 2009, 07:40 PM']God grant you many joyful years,
Todd[/quote]

Whether my years are many or few, joyful or sad, matters not to me. As long as my time after I die is happy. But yes, I understand and appreciate the sentiment

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1843033' date='Apr 21 2009, 07:05 PM']The divine assent of faith, firm assent of will and intellect, and religious assent are all acts of [b]will[/b]...[/quote]
No act of forced acceptance has any validity at all, even though accepting something under external compulsion involves an act of the individual's will.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1843034' date='Apr 21 2009, 07:06 PM']But yes, I understand and appreciate the sentiment [/quote]


It is a traditional Eastern Christian expression.

God grant you many joyful years!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1843033' date='Apr 21 2009, 07:05 PM']The divine assent of faith, firm assent of will and intellect, and religious assent are all acts of [b]will[/b]...

You can't make an act of will unwillingly.[/quote]
Yes you can. The acceptance of something even under force still involves an act of your will, but the act is vitiated of any moral value by the external pressure.

This type of coercion is faced by Christians whenever the Church is persecuted, and some die as martyrs and others cave in to the pressure, but what both of the groups have in common is that they made an act of will and chose a particular course of action. How do you think the Donatist schism happened?

Edited April 22, 2009 by Apotheoun

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1843030' date='Apr 21 2009, 08:04 PM']Trent isn't infallible, and so the contradictory position that you propose (i.e., of saying that an infallible council taught error) does not follow.[/quote]

How is Trent not infallible? How is not at the least an ordinary and universal teaching of the Church?

The entire Church was present at the time of Trent. Trent is a council of the Church regardless of the present status of groups who were schismatics at the time.

If the Coptics were to rejoin the Church would the 5th 6th and 7th Council no longer be infallible since they didn't attend?

Edited April 22, 2009 by rkwright

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1843104' date='Apr 21 2009, 07:30 PM']How is Trent not infallible? How is not at the least an ordinary and universal teaching of the Church?[/quote]
It was only a council of the Latin Church, and reflects the theological opinions of that Church alone. That is why some of its decrees contain errors, like the one I pointed out about icons and relics that you ignored, but it also taught that man is made "just" by a justice that is not God's own, which is contrary to the teaching of the Church Fathers.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1843104' date='Apr 21 2009, 07:30 PM']The entire Church was present at the time of Trent.[/quote]
Just the Latin Church was represented at Trent (see above explanation).

[quote name='rkwright' post='1843104' date='Apr 21 2009, 07:30 PM']Trent is a council of the Church regardless of the present status of groups who were schismatics at the time.[/quote]
Trent was a council of the Latin Church alone, and that is why its decrees are only applicable within that [i]sui juris[/i] Church.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1843104' date='Apr 21 2009, 07:30 PM']If the Coptics were to rejoin the Church would the 5th 6th and 7th Council no longer be infallible since they didn't attend?[/quote]
The Copts would have to renounce the Miaphysite heresy and condemn Severus, Pyrrhus, et al., in order to be restored to the Church.

[Resurrexi]

The Latin sui iuris Church was the only sui iuris Church in full communion with the Catholic Church at the time. All the others were in schism from the Church of Jesus Christ.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1843185' date='Apr 21 2009, 09:38 PM']It was only a council of the Latin Church, and reflects the theological opinions of that Church alone. That is why some of its decrees contain errors, like the one I pointed out about icons and relics that you ignored, but it also taught that man is made "just" by a justice that is not God's own, which is contrary to the teaching of the Church Fathers.

Just the Latin Church was represented at Trent (see above explanation).

Trent was a council of the Latin Church alone, and that is why its decrees are only applicable within that [i]sui juris[/i] Church.

The Copts would have to renounce the Miaphysite heresy and condemn Severus, Pyrrhus, et al., in order to be restored to the Church.[/quote]

If just the Latin Church was represented at Trent, and thus it was only a Latin Council, then we can also say that at the 5th Ecumenical Council the Copts were not present, so its not fully an ecumenical council but merely a council of everyone other than the Copts.

How far back do we need to go with this ridiculous logic?

Who cares about what the Copts think at the time of the 5th Ecumenical council - they're in Schism at the time (and are currently).

Who cares what the Eastern Orthodox think at the time of Trent - they're not a part of Christ's Church then.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1843227' date='Apr 21 2009, 10:08 PM']If just the Latin Church was represented at Trent, and thus it was only a Latin Council, then we can also say that at the 5th Ecumenical Council the Copts were not present, so its not fully an ecumenical council but merely a council of everyone other than the Copts.

How far back do we need to go with this ridiculous logic?

Who cares about what the Copts think at the time of the 5th Ecumenical council - they're in Schism at the time (and are currently).

Who cares what the Eastern Orthodox think at the time of Trent - they're not a part of Christ's Church then.[/quote]

I have to agree. Now if there are churches in communion with Rome who sit out of a council, then I can see an argument being made, but why does a church that is not in communion with Rome at the time of a council have any say as to the status of the council in question?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1843196' date='Apr 21 2009, 08:46 PM']The Latin sui iuris Church was the only sui iuris Church in full communion with the Catholic Church at the time. All the others were in schism from the Church of Jesus Christ.[/quote]
So the Maronites were not in communion with Rome as they proudly proclaim on nearly every possible occasion?

There were no Maronite representatives at Trent.