Pope Benedict XVI is Nestorian

[SaintPhotios]

As if we needed more proof of his heresies... in his book "God and World," Pope Benedict XVI made openly Nestorian statements. How will they defend his infallibility with statements like this? This tricky part is that they were made in his section about Nestorius.

This is in fact a great paradox. God becomes small. He becomes man; he accepts thereby the limitations of human conception and childbirth. He has a mother and is thus truly woven into the tapestry of our human history, so that in fact a woman is able to say to him who is her child, a human child: the Lord of the world is within you.

This is clearly Nestorian. Fitting the textbook definition, Ratzinger draws a sharp distinction between the HUMAN child... and the Lord that is merely within Him. This is clearly Nestorian, and the language is borderline Arian.


For a long time, there was a great deal of controversy about the expression Mother of God. There were the Nestorians, who said she did not of course give birth to God; she gave birth to the man Jesus. Accordingly she should be called Mother of Christ, but not Mother of God. It was basically a matter of the question of how profound a unity there is between God and man in this person Jesus Christ, whether it is so great we can say, Yes, the one who is born of her is God, and so she is God’s Mother. Obviously she is not God’s mother in the sense of his having come from her. But she was in the sense of having been the mother of the man that was entirely at one with God. In this was she entered into a quite unique union with God (God and World, pgs. 293-4).”


This is absurd.... even the Arians agree that the man Christ was united with God in a sense. Christ was not merely a man. Christ was a Divine PERSON. He was not a human person. He was a Divine person that assumed human nature. To deny this and us the language as we see above is blatantly Nestorian.


“The Greek theologian Maximus the Confessor depicts this process in a particularly impressive way. He shows us how the “alchemy of being” is accomplished in the prayer on the Mount of Olives. Here, Jesus’ will becomes one with the will of the Son and, thereby, with the will of the Father. All the rebelliousness of human nature, which shuts itself against death and against the horrors he can see, comes to the surface in this prayer. Jesus has to overcome man’s inward resistance against God. He must overcome the temptation to do it some other way. And now this temptation reaches its zenith. Only the breakdown of this resistance makes this yes possible. It ends with the fusion of his own individual, human will into the will of God, and thus, with a single petition: “But let not my will, but your will, be done (God and World, pg. 327).
This was truly the most shocking for me. He openly implies that Christ, the man, is not the same as the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. And he even goes so far as to say that Jesus' human nature contained resistance against God!!

[buzuxi02]

Yup, that first quote is definately a quintessential example of Nestorianism

[français]

I am sure they will have a 3rd vatican council and change all their beliefs, as it seems like they did at their second one!!

[Matrona]

Good gravy! :eek:

Of course, I was just reading a book written by a Catholic on the Great Schism where it was proclaimed that the RCC is willing to "tolerate heretical opinions for the sake of unity". :doh:

[SeraphimSarov]

Of course, I was just reading a book written by a Catholic on the Great Schism where it was proclaimed that the RCC is willing to "tolerate heretical opinions for the sake of unity". :doh:

If all the other garbage hadn't driven me out of Catholicism, that would have. :eek:

[MariaRegina]

“The Greek theologian Maximus the Confessor depicts this process in a particularly impressive way. He shows us how the “alchemy of being” is accomplished in the prayer on the Mount of Olives. Here, Jesus’ will becomes one with the will of the Son and, thereby, with the will of the Father. All the rebelliousness of human nature, which shuts itself against death and against the horrors he can see, comes to the surface in this prayer. Jesus has to overcome man’s inward resistance against God. He must overcome the temptation to do it some other way. And now this temptation reaches its zenith. Only the breakdown of this resistance makes this yes possible. It ends with the fusion of his own individual, human will into the will of God, and thus, with a single petition: “But let not my will, but your will, be done (God and World, pg. 327).

Christ has a human will and a divine will.

To say that they are fused is heretical.

Yes, we can say that Christ's human will and His Divine will are of one accord, but to say that they were fused?

[SeraphimSarov]

That's pretty undeniable heresy. I was willing to concede that perhaps the first two quotes were just very, VERY poorly phrased (I hope), but fusion of wills...?

[wynd]

Of course, I was just reading a book written by a Catholic on the Great Schism where it was proclaimed that the RCC is willing to "tolerate heretical opinions for the sake of unity".

:eek: What book was that?

[Brushstroke]

As if we needed more proof of his heresies... in his book "God and World," Pope Benedict XVI made openly Nestorian statements. How will they defend his infallibility with statements like this? This tricky part is that they were made in his section about Nestorius.



This is clearly Nestorian. Fitting the textbook definition, Ratzinger draws a sharp distinction between the HUMAN child... and the Lord that is merely within Him. This is clearly Nestorian, and the language is borderline Arian.



This is absurd.... even the Arians agree that the man Christ was united with God in a sense. Christ was not merely a man. Christ was a Divine PERSON. He was not a human person. He was a Divine person that assumed human nature. To deny this and us the language as we see above is blatantly Nestorian.


This was truly the most shocking for me. He openly implies that Christ, the man, is not the same as the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. And he even goes so far as to say that Jesus' human nature contained resistance against God!!

Wait...huh?! Are you sure this is the right book? :scratch:

If it is...:eek::doh:

[Ioan cel Nou]

I'd say the title of this thread ought to be something like 'Pope Benedict is confused'. The first quote is certainly Nestorian. The last quote ends up Monophysite and the middle one sounds like something a Baha'i would say. If anything can prove that the 'dogma' that the Holy Spirit preserves the Pope from error when teaching on the faith is wrong, this is it.

James

[Matrona]

:eek: What book was that?

IIRC it was Aidan Nichols's Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism, beginning in chapter four.

[tekiahteruah]

While the last passage is very clumisily phrased and (if you ask me) is irresponsible on the part of the Pope because it can be so easily misunderstood, I think it's important to view it within the context of St. Maximus whom he references. St. Maximus DOES talk about the union of the divine and human wills in Christ throughout Christ's life, but always understood as being made possible in the incarnation and then fulfilled in every circumstance of Jesus's life. The union is complete at the incarnation, but as Jesus faces all of our fallen human experience, the union is made manifest. This is why Jesus's whole life was necessary. There is a sense that the divine will sanctifies the human will at the Mount of Olives, even though the divine will had already been joined to the human will. It just had never before had the chance to ultimately manifest itself in the choice for following God's will unto death. All of this is very delicate theology and from that quote it does seem as if Benedict should have explained himself better.

As for the first two quotes, I don't think they are actually theologically wrong. To say that Jesus contains the Lord of the world isn't wrong; it's a metaphorical way to express the incarnation itself. St. Gregory the Wonderworker wrote in his Nativity sermon, "He assumed of Her a spirit-fashioned body conformable to His intents, and was arrayed in it, as in clothing." St. John Damascus also writes: "Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however... God is seen clothed in flesh." Does this mean that Jesus's human body was merely clothing for the divine nature? No, there is a much more organic and complex connection than that, but it poetically expresses what happened in the incarnation.

As for the "completely united with God" part-- it IS true. It's not the whole story, of course, but Benedict does believe in the whole story. But we shouldn't forget that the New Testament uses both "high" and "low" ways to talk about Jesus. In Acts 2, Peter preaches Jesus to the crowds and doesn't once mention Jesus as God, but instead as God's faithful messiah who was killed and raised by God from death. Does that necessarily mean that Peter believed that was ALL Jesus was? No, but it doesn't make it wrong to say it, either. All of these ways of talking about Jesus are true, and to be orthodox all one must do is admit that the ecumenical council formulas are true and not to contradict them. Speaking of Jesus in other ways that don't contradict the councils is a different matter.

But I do agree that taken out of context, at least, these quotes could be very easily misunderstood.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I hope you don't mind me commenting; but it seems like the Pope is only saying that Christ is fully man, as well as fully God.

[SaintPhotios]

As for the first two quotes, I don't think they are actually theologically wrong. To say that Jesus contains the Lord of the world isn't wrong; it's a metaphorical way to express the incarnation itself. St. Gregory the Wonderworker wrote in his Nativity sermon, "He assumed of Her a spirit-fashioned body conformable to His intents, and was arrayed in it, as in clothing."

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you one this.... the first quote: "a woman is able to say to him who is her child, a human child: the Lord of the world is within you. " clearly distinguishes between "him" (that is, Christ) and the Lord that is within Christ. We know that there is a union of natures and wills. But Mary did not give birth to a nature or a will... she gave birth to a person. So there's no such thing as Christ the human Person apart from Christ, the second Person of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is one "Person" -- and He's a Divine "Person" -- he simply unites His Divine Personhood with a human nature and human will. Ratzinger's quote demands that there be two "Persons" -- and that's textbook Nestorianism.

While the last passage is very clumisily phrased and (if you ask me) is irresponsible on the part of the Pope because it can be so easily misunderstood, I think it's important to view it within the context of St. Maximus whom he references. St. Maximus DOES talk about the union of the divine and human wills in Christ throughout Christ's life, but always understood as being made possible in the incarnation and then fulfilled in every circumstance of Jesus's life.

Again.... I ask you to carefully re-read the quotes. This type of language has been anathematized many times by the Church Fathers.

[tekiahteruah]

I don't think you're taking the first quote in context. He didn't write "Mary could say to Christ's separated human nature, you have a big divine appendage." What he said is that she could say to her human child that he was, in some sense, the clothing of God. Is that a perfect metaphor? No, but it is a metaphor, and one that the Church Fathers have used. Of course it is awkwardly phrased, but it all depends with what mindset you read the quote.

[Matrona]

What he said is that she could say to her human child that he was, in some sense, the clothing of God. Is that a perfect metaphor? No, but it is a metaphor, and one that the Church Fathers have used.

That's Apollinarian...

[Jacob4707]

http://www.stmaximus.org/files/music/max-kon-serb.pdf

Kontakion - St. Maximus

Let us the faithful praise with fitting hymns
That lover of the Holy Trinity, great Maximus,
Who clearly taught the divinely given Faith:
That we should give glory unto Christ our God,
Who but one person hath in very truth
Two natures, wills and energies.
Let us cry to him:
Rejoice, divine herald of the Faith.

[SeraphimSarov]

http://www.stmaximus.org/files/music/max-kon-serb.pdf

Kontakion - St. Maximus

Let us the faithful praise with fitting hymns
That lover of the Holy Trinity, great Maximus,
Who clearly taught the divinely given Faith:
That we should give glory unto Christ our God,
Who but one person hath in very truth
Two natures, wills and energies.
Let us cry to him:
Rejoice, divine herald of the Faith.

:crosseo:

[resoto]

Remember that the Pope is german.
Germans love to express simple things in complicated fashion.

[tekiahteruah]

That's Apollinarian...
Taken literally, it is, but not when used as a metaphor, such as St. Gregory and St. John Damascene did in my quotes above-- which I was I used those words, because the saints themselves used it. Not as a dogmatic formulation, but poetically.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

That's Apollinarian...
No, not really. The Apollinarian states that Christ was fully divine with a human body, but no human soul (the divine Logos took its place). Merely saying that the humanity clothes, ie covers, the divine, is not detract from the humanity.

C'mon folks. Not only are these quotes out of context, but they're not even in the language they were authored. He is German, you know.

[ThePilgrim]

I don't think you're taking the first quote in context. He didn't write "Mary could say to Christ's separated human nature, you have a big divine appendage." What he said is that she could say to her human child that he was, in some sense, the clothing of God. Is that a perfect metaphor? No, but it is a metaphor, and one that the Church Fathers have used. Of course it is awkwardly phrased, but it all depends with what mindset you read the quote.
No, that's not what the Fathers said. You're failing to a distinction here that's really important. The Fathers *did* speak of Christ God being clothed in humanity. Such language, as you say, is poetic, and not heretical.

However, that's not the same as saying that Mary could look at her human child and tell him that he was the human clothing of God. If you notice your pronoun use in that sentence, you're using "he" as the subject of the sentence "was the human clothing of God."

Christ is a person. You can say that His divinity was clothed in His humanity, but you can't say that *He* was the human clothing of God. Nor, for that matter, can you say that Mary could say to her human child that the Lord of the world was *in Him*. To phrase it that way isn't merely poetic, but it draws a distinction between, "The Lord of the World," and "Him."

In Christ,
John

[SpyridonOCA]

As Orthodox Christians, we are called not to judge others, but to regularly judge ourselves. Having said that, what reason is there for this thread? Let the Romans worry about their own Pope.

[Fish and Bread]

I'm inclined to believe that a lot of this can be chalked up to poor translations. Pope Benedict XVI is one of the keenest theological minds of our times and I just don't believe he'd phrase some of this as quoted. However, I do believe that the English-language translator might have -- the English speaking Roman Catholic nations are not as a whole known for their strong doctrinal orthodoxy nowadays (Which is not to say that they aren't doctrinally orthodox as a whole, just that they have some well-known dissenters).

[SeraphimSarov]

As Orthodox Christians, we are called not to judge others, but to regularly judge ourselves. Having said that, what reason is there for this thread? Let the Romans worry about their own Pope.
That is a very good point.

[SpyridonOCA]

We already believe the Pope is heretical and, therefore, threads like this are unnecessary.

[eastcoast_bsc]

We already believe the Pope is heretical and, therefore, threads like this are unnecessary.

When you say "we" are you meaning you?

A joint commission of Orthodox and Catholic theologians agreed that the Pope has primacy over all bishops, though disagreements about the extent of his authority still continue. The Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue reached the agreement in a meeting in Ravenna, Italy in October 2007

[Orthosdoxa]

Where did that quote come from, east? :scratch: The Roman Pope has no jurisdiction over any Orthodox anywhere.

[Sacrum Silentium]

The squabblings of ecumenist armchair theologians don't mean a whole lot to me.

[SeraphimSarov]

When you say "we" are you meaning you?
That quote doesn't say anything about whether he's a heretic or not.

[Philothei]

As if we needed more proof of his heresies... in his book "God and World," Pope Benedict XVI made openly Nestorian statements. How will they defend his infallibility with statements like this? This tricky part is that they were made in his section about Nestorius.



This is clearly Nestorian. Fitting the textbook definition, Ratzinger draws a sharp distinction between the HUMAN child... and the Lord that is merely within Him. This is clearly Nestorian, and the language is borderline Arian.



This is absurd.... even the Arians agree that the man Christ was united with God in a sense. Christ was not merely a man. Christ was a Divine PERSON. He was not a human person. He was a Divine person that assumed human nature. To deny this and us the language as we see above is blatantly Nestorian.


This was truly the most shocking for me. He openly implies that Christ, the man, is not the same as the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. And he even goes so far as to say that Jesus' human nature contained resistance against God!!
Photios, can you pm to me the links where you got this information I would like to bring it about to my Bishop...

I cannot tell from these three passages as .... they can be more into the articles or sermons that was said about divine nature and he merely just brings up the human .... need to see the whole text.
Thank you,
God bless,
Philothei

[eastcoast_bsc]

Where did that quote come from, east? :scratch: The Roman Pope has no jurisdiction over any Orthodox anywhere.

I am looking for the article again. I am trying to find a partial site, but this will have to do. I would reccomend that you find out the actual language of the accord, from the accord itself. This is a catholic site, but I believe the story is true. Once again, I would suggest you investigate further.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=54768



Ecumenical talks reach partial accord on papal primacy http://www.cwnews.com/images/optimized/rss_bug.gif (http://www.cwnews.com/news/rss/index.cfm)


Rome, Nov. 14, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Talks between Catholic and Orthodox theologians held in Ravenna, Italy, in October produced a framework for agreement about the primacy of the Pope, according to a report in the Italian daily La Repubblica.
The top Vatican representative at the Ravenna talks has cautioned that a 46-paragraph final document approved by the participants should not be seen as a dramatic step toward Orthodox acceptance of the Pope's authority, since it does not resolve questions about the nature of papal authority.
Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio (http://www.cwnews.com/news/biosgloss/definition.cfm?bioID=17) - news (http://www.cwnews.com/search/processor.cfm?searchfrombio=17)), the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told a Vatican Radio audience that "the real breakthrough is that for the first time the Orthodox were ready to speak about the universal level of the Church."
The 46-paragraph document approved at the Ravenna meeting-- which is due for release on November 15-- refers to the Bishop of Rome as the "first among the patriarchs," La Repubblica reported. The document recognizes the historical patriarchates of the united Church, in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Among these, the Ravenna participants agreed, Rome has primacy.
However, the Ravenna document does not settle questions about the power the Pope enjoys as a consequence of that primacy. In fact, the members of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue noted in their concluding statement that Catholic and Orthodox theologians disagree "on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos," or first among the patriarchs. "While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West," the Ravenna statement continued, "there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations."

[Bushmaster78FS]

A joint commission of Orthodox and Catholic theologians agreed that the Pope has primacy over all bishops,

It seems those "Orthodox" theologians do not know their own history, they need to go back about a thousand years and read the Orthodox arguments around the time of Schism.

[Philothei]

It seems those "Orthodox" theologians do not know their own history, they need to go back about a thousand years and read the Orthodox arguments around the time of Schism.
you are not kidding.... If they seriously agree that the Pope is the first among equals (universally?). they are for the birds.....what kind of nonsense is this? Well, at least the Russians did not participate in it... there goes the majority of the Orthodox Bishops.....:D

God bless,
Philothei

[MariaRegina]

I wish that all Roman Catholics would be saved..... .

Yes, we must pray for the salvation of all. And I agree with you.

The words of institution prayed at the Divine Liturgy reflect this desire of God.

Drink ye all of this: This is the Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins.

However, not all will be saved, otherwise the Eucharistic prayer would say, ¨which is shed for you and for all¨ which it does not. Notice that even the Catholic Church has recently changed the Eucharistic words of institution to reflect what the Antiochian prayer book says. ¨for many¨

[BillH]

I'm not going to debate, but as a point of order, I would say that "God and the World" was not written by Pope Benedict XVI. It was written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the man who would later become Pope. The charism of infallibility applies to the office of Pope, and not to the man. So even if we were to grant that the statement was heretical, it wouldn't affect the doctrine of papal infallibility.

[MariaRegina]

I'm not going to debate, but as a point of order, I would say that "God and the World" was not written by Pope Benedict XVI. It was written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the man who would later become Pope. The charism of infallibility applies to the office of Pope, and not to the man. So even if we were to grant that the statement was heretical, it wouldn't affect the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Excuse me, I was a Roman Catholic for 50 years, and university educated.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility (1870) does not say that every word that comes out of the mouth of the Pope is infallible. He is a sinner and very fallible just like the rest of us.

The Roman Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibility says that when the Pope of Rome speaks ex Cathedra on matters of faith and morals, then and only then are his words to be considered infallible. It has been very rarely employed. 1954 was the first time it was used, right? And then some say that the birth control encyclical issued by Pope Paul VI was infallible, isn´t that true? Are there any other times this papal power has been used?

Of course, the Orthodox Christians do not accept this novel development of papal powers and never have.

[WarriorAngel]

**The Incarnation implies three facts: (1) The Divine Person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) of Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm); (2) The Human Nature (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) of Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm); (3) The Hypostatic Union (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm) of the Human with the Divine Nature (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) in the Divine Person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) of Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm).


**A theological (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580x.htm) term used with reference to the Incarnation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm) to express the revealed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) that in Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) one person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) subsists in two natures (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm), the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation.


**Antiochene errors (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) soon to be known as Nestorian. In particular he denounced (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04733b.htm) those who employed the word Theotokos, though he was ready to admit the use of it in a certain sense. Such an admission is worse than useless, for it involves the whole error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) that the Blessed Virgin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm) is not the mother of the Second Person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) of the Holy Trinity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm).

I wanted to show three things we know historically.

[Fish and Bread]

And according to the Papal Decree, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, by Pope Paul IV, any Bishop that falls into heresy prior to his elevation to the Papacy is null and void, even if voted unanimously by all of the Cardinals.

I googled the encyclical you referred to and it doesn't seem to be referenced on either the Vatican's site, or any other commonly referenced sites that archive Papal encyclicals. In fact, I can't find a single article or discussion of it that I'd consider mainstream. Everything is from sedavacionists or wikipedia quoting sedavacionists. I don't want to seem like a doubting Thomas (Though St. Thomas the Apostle is in fact amongst my famous Saints :) ), but I'm not entirely sure this encyclical even truly exists, from what I've seen.

I don't really want to get into discussing it until it's demonstrated that it in fact truly exists and wasn't made up by a disgruntled person somewhere along the line. There are too many strange sedavacionist conspiracy theories out there for me not to be at least a little bit suspicious. Do you have any links to a mainstream site that would verify that this encylical in fact exists and says what it is claimed to say?

[helenofbritain]

And according to the Papal Decree, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, by Pope Paul IV, any Bishop that falls into heresy prior to his elevation to the Papacy is null and void, even if voted unanimously by all of the Cardinals.

The only thing I could find was by Pope Paul VI, and it was about electing popes. The title wasn't in Latin, so I don't know if it's the same document, but there's nothing in there about heretical bishops.

The phrase "null and void" is used 7 times, and the only time it's vaguely related to what you suggest is here:


After serious and lengthy consideration, We decree and prescribe these norms. We declare abrogated, as provided for above, the apostolic constitutions and ordinations issued on these matters by other Roman pontiffs, and We will that this constitution take full effect now and in the future. All of its explanations and determinations are to be carefully observed and fulfilled by all whom they affect, anything to the contrary notwithstanding, even if it be worthy of very special consideration. If anyone, knowingly or unknowingly, acts otherwise than We have prescribed, We declare his acts null and void.


And he's speaking about the electors, not the elected there.

Read the whole thing (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6elect.htm), if you like.

[SaintPhotios]

The only thing I could find was by Pope Paul VI, and it was about electing popes. The title wasn't in Latin, so I don't know if it's the same document, but there's nothing in there about heretical bishops.

The phrase "null and void" is used 7 times, and the only time it's vaguely related to what you suggest is here:


No.... it's a different Pope. Pope Paul VI is a 20th century Pope -- Pope Paul IV is a 16th century Pope.

And by the way... for those wanted a better source for this, I did find a few for you.

Bullarium Romanum Vol. IV Sec. 1

Also, the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia as well as the 1917 Code of Canon Law states the same -- if the Pope departs from the Catholic faith, he is ipso facto removed from office.

This thread isn't really about Roman Catholic canon law.... but I just wanted to verify, for any doubters, that this is the Roman Catholic position if you adhere to Papal Infallibility. And if you adhere to it, then you've got yourselves an anti-Pope. Either way I think it's problematic for you.

[BillH]

First, let's keep in mind that "God and the World" is an English translation of a journalist's transcript of an informal interview of a guy who was not Pope. If, given the large quantity of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict's more precise and careful theological writings that are publically available, you can show that he maintains a Nestorian theme, then I'll be more convinced. Picking a sentence that he didn't write, and dissecting it in a way that might plausibly lead to an unorthodox translation, and acting as judge, jury and executioner in your own personal heresy trial, does not a heretic make.

Have you written to him, asking for a clarification of his views? Have you reviewed the original German copies of the interview? Have you noticed a continual tendency in his public writings and speeches to teach Nestorianism? If not, calling him a Nestorian is calumny, pure and simple.

[choirfiend]

Let's all go cool off for a day or two. There are reports coming from this thread, so it's time for people to go think about how well they are treating each other and with how much respect they are addressing each other.

[Akathist]

This thread is reopened now and moved to the Debate area. I did a thread clean up to get us all back on track.

[Xpycoctomos]

Do we really think that a CATHOLIC Pope is nestorian? We have a list of choices before us:
The traslation's crap
It's taken out of context
We're reading things into it and dissecting in ways it wasn't meant to be (I vote here!)
The pope of Rome has fallen into... Nestorianism?

I mean or all things to assume, this seems like the least likely.

I would bet my left arm that he's not nestorian.

[Philothei]

I would bet my left arm that he's not nestorian.



lol... although I would not bet my left arm I still agree with you on that one.....lol... it sounds like a "wild goose chase"....

God bless,
Philothei

[Xpycoctomos]

I would bet my left arm that he's not nestorian.



lol... although I would not bet my left arm I still agree with you on that one.....lol... it sounds like a "wild goose chase"....

God bless,
Philothei
Well, perhaps a bit drastic of a bet. I hate to say it but if I were proven wrong, I would probably renig on the deal lol

[TomUK]

I would bet my left arm that he's not nestorian.

I call that bet and raise you my right knee and both my ear lobes.

[nestoj]

Gentleman, bet is accepted. Usual fee for the TAW is 10%, but this time, considering the the prizes, we'll pass.

nestoj
God helps

[Philothei]

lol... yeah do not forget the inflation of gas prices....

God bless,
Philothei

[Akathist]

wow is it getting bloody in here or what?

:D

So we are up to a left arm, a right knee and two ear lobes? Any other takers? :tutu:

[Bushmaster78FS]

Pope (not this one), has kissed the Quran, therefore, he must have been a muslim... :doh:

[Xpycoctomos]

I call that bet and raise you my right knee and both my ear lobes.
But, how long are you ear lobes? Do they hang low? Do they wobble to and fro, can you tie them in a knot, can you time them in a... bow? Can you throw them over your shoulder like a contintental solider?

i need to know this so I can figure out how many toes to throw in.

[Philothei]

lol.... you guys....^_^ ^_^ ^_^

[Knightwolflord]

Excuse me, I was a Roman Catholic for 50 years, and university educated.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility (1870) does not say that every word that comes out of the mouth of the Pope is infallible. He is a sinner and very fallible just like the rest of us.

The Roman Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibility says that when the Pope of Rome speaks ex Cathedra on matters of faith and morals, then and only then are his words to be considered infallible. It has been very rarely employed. 1954 was the first time it was used, right? And then some say that the birth control encyclical issued by Pope Paul VI was infallible, isn´t that true? Are there any other times this papal power has been used?

Of course, the Orthodox Christians do not accept this novel development of papal powers and never have.
"Novel Development"

I had to laugh at that one....

[Knightwolflord]

Pope (not this one), has kissed the Quran, therefore, he must have been a muslim... :doh:
Must we go back to that, LOL

I thought I had heard enough of that already from the Protestants, LOL!!

[Thekla]

But, how long are you ear lobes? Do they hang low? Do they wobble to and fro, can you tie them in a knot, can you time them in a... bow? Can you throw them over your shoulder like a contintental solider?

i need to know this so I can figure out how many toes to throw in.



^_^

(how many times have I heard that song ...)

[Philothei]

Must we go back to that, LOL

I thought I had heard enough of that already from the Protestants, LOL!!
No, we do not need to hear more I agree .... and this thread is about finished.... I think...

God bless,
Philothei

[TomUK]

But, how long are you ear lobes? Do they hang low? Do they wobble to and fro, can you tie them in a knot, can you time them in a... bow? Can you throw them over your shoulder like a contintental solider?



I'd always heard that sung with rather more female body part. :eek: :sorry:

[Ioan cel Nou]

I'd always heard that sung with rather more female body part. :eek: :sorry:
Yeah, you would have done on this side of the pond. The version I'm most familiar with also started with "Ee by gum..." but then I did grow up in Yorkshire.

James

[orthros]

PEACE.....WOW! AS A CATHOLIC SEARCHING INTO ORTHODOXY, I AM FINDING THIS CONVERSATION VERY INTERESTING. YES, CATHOLICS KNOW ABOUT ALL THE HERESY IN THE CHURCH ALTHOUGH SOME DO NOT KNOW A THING - SAD THEY ARE GOING DOWN AN VERY EMPTY PATH! WITH ALL THE ERRORS AND HERESY, THE CHURCH (OR HOUSE) WILL BE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF AS IT ALREADY IS AND NOT STAND AS SCRIPTURE WARNS.....THERE ARE MANY CATHOLICS SUFFERING IN THE CHURCH DURING THESE MOST DIFFICULT TIMES. SOME HAVE LEFT TO SEARCH INTO ORTHODOXY, SUCH AS MYSELF AND OTHERS ARE NOT ATTENDING MASS NOW, BUT PRAYING CONSTANTLY AT HOME. WHEN I STARTED RESEARCHING INTO THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH PRIOR TO ROME AND THE POPES, I CAME TO REALIZE THERE IS A LOT MORE TO CHRISTIANITY PRIOR TO ROME. MY HEART ACHES FOR THOSE KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY "STUCK" WITH TEACHING THAT ARE SO FAR OUT OF LINE AND THE YOUNG ONES WILL NOT EVEN KNOW IF THEY DON'T TAKE TIME TO DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK! I WAS DRAWN TO THE "ANCIENT DIVINE LITURGY" IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND NOT THE POLITICS WHILE I REALIZE THAT THE HISTORY PLAYS A LARGE PART IN ALL THAT IS HAPPENING. WITH THE POPE AND PATRIARCH HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT UNITING PATHS, I CERTAINLY HOPE THE ORTHODOX UNITE WITH THE OLD LATIN RITE AND NOT THE MODERN NOVUS ORDO WHICH IS VERY OFF-BASE AND HAS ALMOST DESTROYED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SINCE THE '60'S. GOD BLESS, ANY SUGGESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR A NEW ORTHODOX MEMBER IS APPRECIATED. "orthros":crosseo:

[nestoj]

GOD BLESS, ANY SUGGESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR A NEW ORTHODOX MEMBER IS APPRECIATED. "orthros":crosseo: Speak the truth when you believe you see it, accept correction when you err. Compare your deeds to the Christ's whatever you do, even if you already did it, better before you do it. Do not judge others, but do not be silent when silence is more damaging then opinion. Live your faith, don't just have it (this I borrowed from Xpyctocomos) - like the talants, they are no good in the ground.

And welcome.

nestoj
God helps

[orthros]

As if we needed more proof of his heresies... in his book "God and World," Pope Benedict XVI made openly Nestorian statements. How will they defend his infallibility with statements like this? This tricky part is that they were made in his section about Nestorius.



This is clearly Nestorian. Fitting the textbook definition, Ratzinger draws a sharp distinction between the HUMAN child... and the Lord that is merely within Him. This is clearly Nestorian, and the language is borderline Arian.



This is absurd.... even the Arians agree that the man Christ was united with God in a sense. Christ was not merely a man. Christ was a Divine PERSON. He was not a human person. He was a Divine person that assumed human nature. To deny this and us the language as we see above is blatantly Nestorian.


This was truly the most shocking for me. He openly implies that Christ, the man, is not the same as the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. And he even goes so far as to say that Jesus' human nature contained resistance against God!!
PEACE.....I FOUND THIS INFO SO INTERESTING THAT I HAVE ORDERED THE BOOK AND AM VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO READING IT. I AM CONCERNED THAT THE POPE DID NOT WRITE IT HIMSELF, AND THIS INTERVIEW AND THE WRITER WAS MAKING A FARSE OF IT. THERE ARE ENEMIES IN THE VATICAN YOU KNOW AND WE MUST BE CAREFUL OF WHO WE ACTUALLY ACCUSE, BUT WITH ALL THE SCANDAL, LIES AND CHANGES IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SINCE DAY ONE, WHO COULD EXPECT DIFFERENT? I WILL CHECK THIS OUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE, I HEARD YESTERDAY, THAT THE AMERICAN BISHOPS FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GAVE A BIG THUMBS UP FOR THE "GOLDEN COMPASS" MOVIE WHEN IN FACT, THEY HAVE HIRED A LAYPERSON TO SEARCH THIS INFO OUT FOR MOVIES, BOOKS ETC AND MAKE A COMMENT TO THE MEDIA. MY FRIENDS AND I WERE SHOCKED! AGAIN, WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW WHAT IS WHAT FOR SURE AND TRUE -WE ARE IN A TERRIBLE STATE OF CONFUSION.....IF THE BISHOPS HIRED A LAYPERSON TO DO THIS WORK INSTEAD OF DOING IT THEMSELVES, IT IS A VERY BAD AND WRONG DECEPTION TO THE PEOPLE BUT A GOOD WAY FOR THEM TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST ACCUSATIONS OF ANY KIND WHILE PASSING THE BUCK TO THEIR HIRED HAND. GOD HELP US! WHAT NEXT? "orthros"