What If Billy Graham

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='1173329' date='Jan 22 2007, 06:53 PM']
i agree with STM. The orthodox are obviously schismatic because they refuse to submit to the Pope, but they obviously deny Defined Dogma, which makes them heretic. according to the CCC
therefore a heretic is someone who is baptized but denies Dogma (like the orthodox). Some orthodox deny The immaculate conception, purgatory, Papal infallibility, and the list goes on...
[/quote]
That's anachronistic. The Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility were both dogmatically defined well after the schism occured. You can't fault them for denying defined dogma if it wasn't dogmatically defined then. However, you can fault them for denying doctrine, but only in so much as they should know better, which is something you can't judge.

Anyway, it's not schism or heresy that negates the ability to consecrate. The Orthodox are in Schism and they can consecrate; the Assyrian Church of the East is Nestorian (heretical) and they can consecrate (at least according to my theology teacher, who cited the CDF). What keeps one from consecrating is a lack of valid priesthood. If your theology of the priesthood keeps you from properly understanding its nature in order to know what you're entering into as a priest (thus, nullifying your ordination) or if you do not have apostolic succession (a line of bishops coming from the Apostles, thus having the power to pass on priestly power), you can't consecrate the Eucharist.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1174112' date='Jan 23 2007, 05:24 PM']
i thought the anglican's had legitimate ordinations, which is why they have legitimate eucharistic celebration?
[/quote]
Anglicans do not have legitimage ordinations or legitimate sacraments, save Baptism and, if done with the right understanding of the sacrament, marriage (since marriage is conferred by the wife on the husband and the husband on the wife, not by the priest, except in the Eastern Rites, I believe).

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1174184' date='Jan 23 2007, 04:52 PM']
That's anachronistic. The Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility were both dogmatically defined well after the schism occured. You can't fault them for denying defined dogma if it wasn't dogmatically defined then. However, you can fault them for denying doctrine, but only in so much as they should know better, which is something you can't judge.

Anyway, it's not schism or heresy that negates the ability to consecrate. The Orthodox are in Schism and they can consecrate; the Assyrian Church of the East is Nestorian (heretical) and they can consecrate (at least according to my theology teacher, who cited the CDF). What keeps one from consecrating is a lack of valid priesthood. If your theology of the priesthood keeps you from properly understanding its nature in order to know what you're entering into as a priest (thus, nullifying your ordination) or if you do not have apostolic succession (a line of bishops coming from the Apostles, thus having the power to pass on priestly power), you can't consecrate the Eucharist.
Anglicans do not have legitimage ordinations or legitimate sacraments, save Baptism and, if done with the right understanding of the sacrament, marriage (since marriage is conferred by the wife on the husband and the husband on the wife, not by the priest, except in the Eastern Rites, I believe).
[/quote]

Just because one went in schism before a Dogma was defined, it doesn't make one cease to be an heretic. The definition of heretic is thus:

[quote] 14 Q. Who are heretics?
A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants. [/quote]

Therefore, since the Greek Orthodox obstinately refuse Papal Supremacy (along with many other Dogmata) post-Baptism, they are heretics.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1174265' date='Jan 23 2007, 07:52 PM']
Just because one went in schism before a Dogma was defined, it doesn't make one cease to be an heretic. The definition of heretic is thus:
Therefore, since the Greek Orthodox obstinately refuse Papal Supremacy (along with many other Dogmata) post-Baptism, they are heretics.
[/quote]
I wasn't denying that the Orthodox Church is in a state of heresy. I was correcting your definition of heresy. Heretics deny "any revealed truth about God," as you quoted. That is not limited to dogma. I just wanted to say that you can't fault the Orthodox for denying defined dogma when the dogma wasn't yet defined (at least, not the Orthodox of 1054). However, you can fault them for denying doctrine, which still is heresy, [i]assuming that they knew better[/i]. Dogmas are not "higher" or "more true" than doctrines, they just have defined limits and much less room for theological speculation on their inner-workings.

Now, since heresy is intrinsically grave matter, one is in heresy by denying a truth of the faith. However, to be a heretic requires formal heresy, not material heresy. As such, it requires the same things as a mortal sin (because formal heresy is, by definition, a mortal sin): grave matter (check), full knowledge (not necessarily a check), full consent of the will (also not necessarily a check).

You don't have the right to call anyone a heretic, unless the Church judges the individual as one, because you can't assume that you know the state of their mind or will. Most Orthodox do not realize the truth of the Catholic faith and thus are not likely to be heretics. Most of them are walking through the fields without willingly and knowingly jumping in the poo, if I may use an analogy. You can say they have the stink of poo, you can even say they're surrounded by it, but you can't very well say that they are willingly and knowingly covered in it.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1174291' date='Jan 23 2007, 06:13 PM']
I wasn't denying that the Orthodox Church is in a state of heresy. I was correcting your definition of heresy. Heretics deny "any revealed truth about God," as you quoted. That is not limited to dogma. I just wanted to say that you can't fault the Orthodox for denying defined dogma when the dogma wasn't yet defined (at least, not the Orthodox of 1054). However, you can fault them for denying doctrine, which still is heresy, [i]assuming that they knew better[/i]. Dogmas are not "higher" or "more true" than doctrines, they just have defined limits and much less room for theological speculation on their inner-workings.

Now, since heresy is intrinsically grave matter, one is in heresy by denying a truth of the faith. However, to be a heretic requires formal heresy, not material heresy. As such, it requires the same things as a mortal sin (because formal heresy is, by definition, a mortal sin): grave matter (check), full knowledge (not necessarily a check), full consent of the will (also not necessarily a check).

You don't have the right to call anyone a heretic, unless the Church judges the individual as one, because you can't assume that you know the state of their mind or will. Most Orthodox do not realize the truth of the Catholic faith and thus are not likely to be heretics. Most of them are walking through the fields without willingly and knowingly jumping in the poo, if I may use an analogy. You can say they have the stink of poo, you can even say they're surrounded by it, but you can't very well say that they are willingly and knowingly covered in it.
[/quote]

Most Greek Orthodox, though, do know that the teachings of their false church deny the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church and are therefore not ignorant.

Edited January 24, 2007 by StThomasMore

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1174293' date='Jan 23 2007, 08:17 PM']
Most Greek Orthodox, though, do know that the teachings of their false church deny the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church and are therefore not ignorant.
[/quote]
You have absolutely no proof of that ridiculous statement. They have been brought up in their faith and believe it to be truth. If they thought their church was false they wouldn't be members! Bible -believing protestants and generic christians are the same way. They believe what they have been taught since they were little, just like you do.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1174293' date='Jan 23 2007, 08:17 PM']
Most Greek Orthodox, though, do know that the teachings of their false church deny the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church and are therefore not ignorant.
[/quote]
Most of them do not realize the authority of the Catholic Church over Orthodoxy, though, and since that is foundational, their knowledge that their doctrines are against ours is meaningless. They may well know that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are opposed, but unless they see that Catholicism is right or that the Catholic Church has supreme authority on earth, they will not be denying what they know to be the truth (rather, they will be denying what they think is only a different opinion or what they ignorantly think is false) and thus do not have full knowledge of what they are doing.

[ronyodish]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1174184' date='Jan 23 2007, 06:52 PM']
That's anachronistic. The Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility were both dogmatically defined well after the schism occured. You can't fault them for denying defined dogma if it wasn't dogmatically defined then. However, you can fault them for denying doctrine, but only in so much as they should know better, which is something you can't judge.

Anyway, it's not schism or heresy that negates the ability to consecrate. The Orthodox are in Schism and they can consecrate; the Assyrian Church of the East is Nestorian (heretical) and they can consecrate (at least according to my theology teacher, who cited the CDF). What keeps one from consecrating is a lack of valid priesthood. If your theology of the priesthood keeps you from properly understanding its nature in order to know what you're entering into as a priest (thus, nullifying your ordination) or if you do not have apostolic succession (a line of bishops coming from the Apostles, thus having the power to pass on priestly power), you can't consecrate the Eucharist.
Anglicans do not have legitimage ordinations or legitimate sacraments, save Baptism and, if done with the right understanding of the sacrament, marriage (since marriage is conferred by the wife on the husband and the husband on the wife, not by the priest, except in the Eastern Rites, I believe).
[/quote]

Raphael,

Concerning the Assyrian Church of the East, the Catholic Church no longer considers them as representing the Nestorian heresy. In 1994, the Holy Father JPII and the Patriarch of the Assyrian Church Mar Kh’nanya Dinkha IV signed a Common Christological Declaration in which they stated: "Whatever our Christological divergences have been, we experience ourselves united today in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God who became man so that we might become children of God by his grace". You can read the whole document right here: [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...-church_en.html[/url]

Concerning their ability to consecrate the Eucharist (Which they call Qurbana in Aramaic), your theology professor is probably reffering to this: [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...-assira_en.html[/url]
Specifically, #3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

Concerning the Sacrament of Marriage (or Mystery of Crowning as it is called in the East), it is true that when it is celebrated in the Eastern Catholic Churches, in addition to the mutual consent given by the spouses, the blessing of the priest is necessary for its validity. The CCC mentions this in paragraph 1623.

God bless,

Rony

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Rony Odish' post='1174388' date='Jan 23 2007, 09:42 PM']
Raphael,

Concerning the Assyrian Church of the East, the Catholic Church no longer considers them as representing the Nestorian heresy. In 1994, the Holy Father JPII and the Patriarch of the Assyrian Church Mar Kh’nanya Dinkha IV signed a Common Christological Declaration in which they stated: "Whatever our Christological divergences have been, we experience ourselves united today in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God who became man so that we might become children of God by his grace". You can read the whole document right here: [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...-church_en.html[/url]

Concerning their ability to consecrate the Eucharist (Which they call Qurbana in Aramaic), your theology professor is probably reffering to this: [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...-assira_en.html[/url]
Specifically, #3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

Concerning the Sacrament of Marriage (or Mystery of Crowning as it is called in the East), it is true that when it is celebrated in the Eastern Catholic Churches, in addition to the mutual consent given by the spouses, the blessing of the priest is necessary for its validity. The CCC mentions this in paragraph 1623.

God bless,

Rony
[/quote]

Thank you. I knew that our view of them as Nestorian had been somewhat ambiguous and was more due to semantics, but it's nice to see that there is an official document on the matter.

God bless,

Micah

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1174300' date='Jan 23 2007, 08:23 PM']
Most of them do not realize the authority of the Catholic Church over Orthodoxy, though, and since that is foundational, their knowledge that their doctrines are against ours is meaningless. They may well know that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are opposed, but unless they see that Catholicism is right or that the Catholic Church has supreme authority on earth, they will not be denying what they know to be the truth (rather, they will be denying what they think is only a different opinion or what they ignorantly think is false) and thus do not have full knowledge of what they are doing.
[/quote]

Supreme authority on earth. . .

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Read 1st Samuel 8:5-18, and see what YHWH thinks of any human authority on the earth.

And they said unto him: 'Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.' But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said: '[b]Give us a king to judge us.[/b]' And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel: 'Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee,[b] but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them[/b]. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, in that they have forsaken Me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice; howbeit thou shalt earnestly forewarn them, and shalt declare unto them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.' And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said: [b]'This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them unto him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks; and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' [/b]

Any human lead authority that is the ultimate power on the earth is evil in the sight of YHWH. He considers such people usurpers of his rule of the people. Sorry, only YHWH is the supreme authority on the earth.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1174406' date='Jan 23 2007, 10:07 PM']
Supreme authority on earth. . .

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Read 1st Samuel 8:5-18, and see what YHWH thinks of any human authority on the earth.

And they said unto him: 'Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.' But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said: '[b]Give us a king to judge us.[/b]' And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel: 'Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee,[b] but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them[/b]. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, in that they have forsaken Me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice; howbeit thou shalt earnestly forewarn them, and shalt declare unto them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.' And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said: [b]'This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them unto him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks; and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' [/b]

Any human lead authority that is the ultimate power on the earth is evil in the sight of YHWH. He considers such people usurpers of his rule of the people. Sorry, only YHWH is the supreme authority on the earth.
[/quote]

Since God isn't here sitting on His Throne on earth, somebody has to be in charge, and when it comes to faith and morals, that is the Pope.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1174412' date='Jan 23 2007, 10:12 PM']
Since God isn't here sitting on His Throne on earth, somebody has to be in charge, and when it comes to faith and morals, that is the Pope.
[/quote]

He never needed one for the original nation of Israel. Or why would the Israelites be asking for a King.

And if he didn't think he needed someone on a throne being a moral authority in the old testament, then why would he need one in the new testament. . .

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1174431' date='Jan 23 2007, 10:18 PM']
He never needed one for the original nation of Israel. Or why would the Israelites be asking for a King.

And if he didn't think he needed someone on a throne being a moral authority in the old testament, then why would he need one in the new testament. . .
[/quote]
Because Jesus founded a Church, and somebody has to be in charge .

[Thy Geekdom Come]

St. Paul said that we are all members of the Body of Christ. Someone has to be the brain. Since all priests are ordained into Christ's priesthood, it makes sense that they are all members of the head, who is Christ. Therefore, there are those who speak the Gospel, those who hear the needs of the Church, those who see the Christian vocation, etc., all in the priesthood.

The pope's power is the power He has in Christ and from Christ. It is not worldly power (although some popes have had that), it is heavenly power; heavenly power comes from heaven, where there is no corruption, and thus does not corrupt.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I could still push the issue given what's been said, but I think it appropriate to say that the CC wants someone closely adhered to its teachings to partake. That means someone who follows the same morals and follows good authority and are unified and such. That gives dignity to the sacrament. The orthodox are catholic in all except what aurthority they follow, and they believe the are the unifiers and the CC is the source of disunity, but that's probably not enough to hold against them when considering how closely they adhereto what the CC wants.
Billy grahm missing the authority of apostolic succession is major enough I could see as beginning ot deivate too much from what's wanted. You gotta draw the line somewhere and that's a pretty big issue, apostolic succession.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1174461' date='Jan 23 2007, 10:31 PM']
Because Jesus founded a Church, and somebody has to be in charge .
[/quote]
Why? Why does someone need to be in authority?

If we all have the Holy Ghost, and it leads us into all truth, why do we need human leadership? Why do we need any human leadership, be it religion or governmental? Are we being brainwashed into believing we need it?

After reading 1st Samuel 8:5-18, those were my questions, especially when I read those scriptures, and see coutries creating armies which they use to kill each other. Where religions teach people to commit holy crusades through out the last two thousand years.

First it was the Christians who invaded the holy lands during the great crusades, and now it's Osma Bin Ladens asking people to fly air planes into buildings, if that is what truly happened. We have WWI, and WWII, the first bringing the opression of federal income tax to us, and the second bringing the opression of a multi-national organization whose treaties we have signed promotes children watching pornography, homosexual rights, educational enforcement of teaching of global citizens, and many other evil things.

I realized the truth when I saw all these things come to pass. We don't need religion or government, only YHWH. But the flesh will always war against the spirit, and so your statement reminds me of such. Your flesh wants the security of human leadership.

I choose something else entirely. I will not conform to this world of govenrment or religion anymore. I will go YHWH's way. His way is pure and precious. His way is better for us. We need the be freed of all bondage of government and religion because they only bring wars, death, destruction, famine, bondage and control in our world.