Dear Nick, one of the great Greek Fathers of the Church, St. Maximus the confessor aptly summarizes the rule of Faith,

"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".

Yes, I agree sedevacantism is hardly compatible with this. But that is another matter altogether.

The Greeks also already tried to deny the Filioque, later they would fall into iconoclasm from which they were rescued by Rome. St. Maximus was a right expositor of true faith against the heresy of monothelitism. He also showed even then that the Romans had advanced the unanimous testimony of the Latin Fathers in proof of the Filioque. At this time, there was some difference of terminology, but later the Greeks would deny the dogma itself.

The Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son in an eternal act of love. For this reason, He is called the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son. And in just the same way as we say the Son is begotten of the Father eternally by way of generation, and for this reason is called the Son "of" the Father, for the same reason we must acknowledge that the Spirit "of" the Father and "of" the Son proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and by one procession. St. John says of him, using the same figure used in the Gospels and the Prophets, "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb."

The Athanasian Creed rightly puts it expressing the ancient and orthodox Faith of the Church, "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding."

This was again reaffirmed solemnly both in Lyons II and in Florence and universally agreed by both Latins and Greeks.

Likewise, the Greeks have unhappily owing to their schism also fallen into the error of contesting the inviolable privileges of the Mother of God and trying to cast doubt on Her Immaculate Conception. This is tragic in the extreme given the way the Eastern Fathers in particular never tire of extolling Her absolute sinless, purity, Her being all-holy, excelling all Saints and Angels in dignity, and being the greatest of God's creatures. St. Ephraem says well of the Lord, "Thou alone and Thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in Thee and no stain in thy Mother." The Fathers also use the New Eve/New Adam parallel and Eve was created without original sin and Mary must necessarily have had this prerogative and exceeded her in this. Also the comparison to the unstained immaculate ark of the Covenant leads to teh same conclusion. True piety and devotion to the Blessed Mother must be informed by orthodox faith and doctrine and this can be had only in communion with the Roman Church and in full subjection the See of Peter and the Supreme Pontiff.

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, the Romans are in schism from themselves, and have grown in their heresies. We are in total agreement that the Roman Church has succuмbed to the heresy of modernism, and has little to no resemblance to the Church before it. We disagree on the way of thinking about it all... as mentioned in my previous post, the Orthodox can't understand this idea that one could adhere to the legal "Office of the Papacy" while not adhering to the Pope.

It's kind of like the military -- "You salute the position and not the person."  If your commanding officer would order you to murder an innocent child, you're not obligated to obey.  If your commanding officer would order you to commit treason and/or act against your country's Constitution, you could, in addition to disobeying them, denounce your commander as being a traitor.  His/her treason and disobedience do not, however, change the Constitution; its permanency remains in spite of the traitors to it.  The same is true of the Roman Catholic Faith.

As I said, your faith lacks unity.  For some Orthodox, contraception is a mortal sin, for others, it is not.  This is why Orthodoxy cannot be the truth.

Dear Nick, one of the great Greek Fathers of the Church, St. Maximus the confessor aptly summarizes the rule of Faith,

Quote

"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".

Yes, I agree sedevacantism is hardly compatible with this. But that is another matter altogether.

The Greeks also already tried to deny the Filioque, later they would fall into iconoclasm from which they were rescued by Rome. St. Maximus was a right expositor of true faith against the heresy of monothelitism. He also showed even then that the Romans had advanced the unanimous testimony of the Latin Fathers in proof of the Filioque. At this time, there was some difference of terminology, but later the Greeks would deny the dogma itself.

The Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son in an eternal act of love. For this reason, He is called the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son. And in just the same way as we say the Son is begotten of the Father eternally by way of generation, and for this reason is called the Son "of" the Father, for the same reason we must acknowledge that the Spirit "of" the Father and "of" the Son proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and by one procession. St. John says of him, using the same figure used in the Gospels and the Prophets, "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb."

The Athanasian Creed rightly puts it expressing the ancient and orthodox Faith of the Church, "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding."

This was again reaffirmed solemnly both in Lyons II and in Florence and universally agreed by both Latins and Greeks.

Likewise, the Greeks have unhappily owing to their schism also fallen into the error of contesting the inviolable privileges of the Mother of God and trying to cast doubt on Her Immaculate Conception. This is tragic in the extreme given the way the Eastern Fathers in particular never tire of extolling Her absolute sinless, purity, Her being all-holy, excelling all Saints and Angels in dignity, and being the greatest of God's creatures. St. Ephraem says well of the Lord, "Thou alone and Thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in Thee and no stain in thy Mother." The Fathers also use the New Eve/New Adam parallel and Eve was created without original sin and Mary must necessarily have had this prerogative and exceeded her in this. Also the comparison to the unstained immaculate ark of the Covenant leads to teh same conclusion. True piety and devotion to the Blessed Mother must be informed by orthodox faith and doctrine and this can be had only in communion with the Roman Church and in full subjection the See of Peter and the Supreme Pontiff.

Well, if Mary was conceived in some way other than the rest of us, then she wouldn't be fully human, and likewise Christ wouldn't be both fully human and fully God! The Immaculate Conception only makes sense from a Western mindset when you consider the (legalistic...) doctrine of original sin, something that's also a Western innovation. Since Mary didn't have any stain of sin, original sin doesn't make sense for her, and hence you need to invent the concept of the Immaculate Conception. The Orthodox believe that Mary didn't sin. Full stop. No legalistic cutting of the pie.

Iconoclasm... whose churches look more iconoclastic now? Definitely the Western Churches! You are de facto iconoclasts. Not to mention the non-canonical use of musical instruments in Liturgical worship...

The Filioque... I guess it's possible to change the wording of the Creed, but the whole problem was that it was done unilaterally. Breaking the conciliar tradition means that your Faith is no longer authentically Catholic, which in the Greek sense of the word meant "of the whole", or professed and practiced by all.

A comparison between the Church and the military, or the Church and a monarchy is something exclusive to the West... the East never had such an understanding.

CHRISTVS IMPERATOR, a Byzantine mosaic.

Besides being false, your statement also rests on the ex post facto and no-true-Scotsman logical fallacies.

Our whole mindset is completely different.

Yes, it is now, after over a thousand years of consciously reacting against whatever is done in the West, since the Eastern bishops cannot accept that somebody who is not Greek could be the head of the Church.

You're agonizing over what's a mortal sin or not, while we've never had the concept of mortal sin to begin with!!! It's a Western innovation!

You can only call it an innovation if you see the Roman theological formulae by which the received Faith is given an explicit explanation as being per se contrary to the Faith simply because the East did not come up with said developments on its own.  Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Sorry, but your assertion that a Western theological development using the language of philosophy and of  (as, say, the Fathers of Chalcedon used Greek natural philosophy to explain the Hypostatic Union or St Clement of Alexandria used language that is very similar to that which can be found in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and prayers to express something true about the Mother of God at the Council of Ephesus) is an innovation simply because the same formulation is not found in the East is erroneous.  

The concepts themselves are found in the East implicitly; they are found in the Greek Fathers and in the liturgy.  One would have to already resist the authority of the Roman Pontiff to teach and judge on questions of doctrine to then characterise his decisions as being innovations.  Or then why do you not also reject the formulations from the first seven Oecuмenical Councils, which used newly crystallised language to express received doctrinal concepts ?

We just ask whether we're reciprocating God's love, goodness, and mercy to others as best we can according to the Faith, or are we not. Variations in opinions is normal and healthy, and was a feature of first millennium Christianity in a VERY big way! The Orthodox all agree on the big issues now, and we really don't consider condoms or not to be a big issue. The divisions aren't there!

That is simply not true.  You admitted yourself that the Eastern churches are rife with schisms and quarrels.  You make a false dichotomy between the virtues of love, goodness, and mercy and doctrinal formulations and canonical precepts.  It would be necessary for you to prove that there are conflicts of virtue versus doctrinal rectitude, charity versus fulfilling the precepts of religion, and mercy versus moral awareness and admonishment before this line of reasoning can be taken seriously.

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, the Romans are in schism from themselves, and have grown in their heresies. We are in total agreement that the Roman Church has succuмbed to the heresy of modernism, and has little to no resemblance to the Church before it. We disagree on the way of thinking about it all... as mentioned in my previous post, the Orthodox can't understand this idea that one could adhere to the legal "Office of the Papacy" while not adhering to the Pope.

It's kind of like the military -- "You salute the position and not the person."  If your commanding officer would order you to murder an innocent child, you're not obligated to obey.  If your commanding officer would order you to commit treason and/or act against your country's Constitution, you could, in addition to disobeying them, denounce your commander as being a traitor.  His/her treason and disobedience do not, however, change the Constitution; its permanency remains in spite of the traitors to it.  The same is true of the Roman Catholic Faith.

As I said, your faith lacks unity.  For some Orthodox, contraception is a mortal sin, for others, it is not.  This is why Orthodoxy cannot be the truth.

No, that doesn't work. Having served in the military, it would be ridiculous to put up a picture of a former Commanding Officer, and salute that when we decide the existing Commanding Officer is illegitimate. A comparison between the Church and the military, or the Church and a monarchy is something exclusive to the West... the East never had such an understanding.

Our whole mindset is completely different. You're agonizing over what's a mortal sin or not, while we've never had the concept of mortal sin to begin with!!! It's a Western innovation! We just ask whether we're reciprocating God's love, goodness, and mercy to others as best we can according to the Faith, or are we not. Variations in opinions is normal and healthy, and was a feature of first millennium Christianity in a VERY big way! The Orthodox all agree on the big issues now, and we really don't consider condoms or not to be a big issue. The divisions aren't there!

So you are telling me that the Oriental Schismatics are so supremely retarded that they cannot make a distinction between a serious sin that cuts one of from God's grace and a lesser sin which merely weakens our souls. Their unwillingness to grow and use their intellect has made them stagnant and obstinate, unable to fully grasp and define what is True and what is not, and therefore are in a spiritual state of retardation. Heresy and schism make you retarded, that is what I take away from all of this.

I'm not sure what they've been doing instead of spreading the Gospel and converting all nations, they certainly haven't been involved in many scholastic pursuits. Maybe making nesting dolls, vodka, and cool Easter eggs. Who knows?

One really sees the truth in the matter when we see the fruits of schism. Schism destroys the intellect and provides platitudes instead of correcting a soul. Not only are they holding Our Lord captive in their  churches, they profane Him by allowing those in the state of public mortal sin, Holy Communion.

I knew OS were shifting toward being part of the World Religion, seems like it is picking up speed, they were so busy feeling and experiencing "faith" that they forgot to attend to theology and morals. And how can they now in the state they are in?

Submission to papacy is the antidote to heresy!

"Miracles" such as these are best not held too... the devil can be very tricky. Furthermore, popular apparitions over the past thousand years have often been to children (not monks or others well-formed in Faith... as is the case with the Orthodox), and these apparitions taught strange things that the Orthodox don't see as part of our Faith (example: wearing of the brown scapular. The Theotokos we know doesn't give free passes out of Hades for wearing the thing and praying each day. The soul must be formed to be like Christ... externals have no bearing on this!). One of us is not like the other.

We say that many of your apparitions, in changing the Faith passed on through time (and having these changes enshrined by the Papacy) are demonic.

The miracle in Fatima had countless of people cured of all kinds of illness, one of the 3 kids gave her life to God becoming a nun...but you say it's of the devil??? you should put a little more effort into you research ...convert before it's too late

Call it what you want... the labels don't really matter when compared to the substance of what's going on there, which is working out the Faith in a conciliar way. Those councils happen at various scales all the time, to make sure that the Faith is kept universally on track. We've done this for 2000 years now!

Mortal sin... how do you, or anyone else (including the Pope) know that it's mortal? Only God is the judge here, and he's also far more powerful than the devil!

I know your position, but evil is not in the condom, since it's just a piece of latex! Evil is in the heart of someone who could choose to imitate God in co-creation, but does not for selfish reasons.

You are simply surprising sir...

How you can so easily dismiss divorce and re-marriage as a non important issue...

Do you realize that you are in a sect, if even for simply just one heresy... Just one... Now the Orthodox Church has a ton of them, MANY of which are against the moral law. So that we don't need to even delve into any other issues, because it matters little if you claim to be the One True Church of Christ...

The One true Church of Christ is faithful to the commandments of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Orthodox Church swayed on that issue simply because of their Papal-Czar, instead of submitting to the true yoke of Christ you submitted to the state who is under the control of the prince of this world...

Answer me this question since the only arguments you would accept as licit would be those pre-schism and not even that, you would only look "to the early Church."

Why is it that anti-Pope Novatian (who was elected a few days later before the true Pope St. Cornelius). If in the early Church as you say things were done "Synodally" why was it that St. Cyprian writes to Pope Stephen (successor) and to St. Cornelius to replace the Bishops from different places who had become Novatianist. Also he says that he had assumed the primacy of the See of St. Peter. It is interesting to see how none of the Eastern Bishops were up in arms in revolt against "holy tradition" when they all had understood that the Pope had the prerogative to appoint Bishops both in the East and the West. This is why it pays to be a student of History, because historically speaking Orthodoxy is completely against the Historical Church. It is also interesting how the Orthodox are so open on just about every issue... So much for having the authority of Christ, to bind and loose to teach all nations. On just about every issue you can think of that matters, the orthodox Church has 0 universality. The Russians disagree with the Greeks, who disagree with just about every other Nationalist orthodox Church.

It is also interesting to see that the monks from the West were the ones that spread the faith all over the world. While the monks in the East just live the Angelic life, with little missionary spirit. I understand that some are called to a greater life of contemplation, no problem in the west we have specific orders dedicated to that sort of life. The greatest attraction to Eastern Orthodoxy is the monastic life, but when you look at everything else it is really not worth it. Majority of clergy are married, its like the worst parts of a democratic society but in the Church. Lets all get together and hug each other, lets all have our little say etc... This is why "the Apostolic Orthodox Church" has completely failed on the most fundamental issues, because it relies on a democratic process rather then the authority of God. Council's are not about numbers some Ecuмenical Councils had 1/3 or 1/4 the amount of Bishops as some robber Councils that have been solemnly condemned by the Church. What makes a Council Ecuмenical is the Supreme Pontiff, without the Vicar of Christ to give you certainty of the faith because Christ promised to him that his faith will fail not, you have nothing. Just a bunch of independent believers that have a modernist religious experience of God during the liturgy... This just happens to suit your particular taste, some others like rock'n'roll liturgies more.

I love how EO schismatics throw the whole Protestant issue at the "scholastic West." Well guess what the reason why the Protestants deviated from the faith was not because of scholasticism, but because of their Fideism. Orthodox are a bunch of Fideist, no different then the Sola Scriptura protestant or the Fideist Mussulman infidel.

You do not have unity of faith, you lack one of the four marks of the Church. Just pushing issues under the rug saying it does not matter, because it is "not the essentials" is the equivalent argument that the modernist use all the time. The truth is that Orthodoxy has more schism's in its history then the West does, the only difference is that those schisms in the East are over matters that should have been dealt with if the One "true Church" had the authority to do so.

The heresies of the West were clear apostates, totally destroying the faith, your schism's are interestingly on matters that prove without a doubt that there is 0 unity in the Orthodox Church. Communion, means absolutely nothing in that heretical Church, plus the Orthodox Church really started changing around the early 1250-1300's on pretty much everything. Before that they were still savable, but sadly enough they started inventing Poly-theist theories such as the Uncreated Light of God, hesychasm etc... It is arguable to say whether you are even Christian in the first place, because of Divine energies. I used to think the Orthodox were really close to Catholics, but once I started doing massive reading to my surprise I found out how much they have departed on pretty much every single issue.

It is absurd to believe that over a period of 900 years with hundreds of thousands of Bishops you will ever get an "agreement" on issues. Synodalism = democracy in the Church, which spells out total disaster for those of us who live in Western countries you will understand this principle. There is a beautiful essay by a ex-protestant Catholic convert talking about this issue and Catholicism in America. Please read the entire essay it is worth a read, and it goes over the problems of democracy. Main thing he says is you need an INFALLIBLE authority to ensure that the passions of people . Take for example the Emperors which wanted to divorce their wife and conveniently the Orthodox Church changes its stance on the matter something that was never true before the Great Schism. So much for keeping sacred tradition alive...

The theory of democracy is, Construct your government and commit it to the people to be taken care of. Democracy is not properly a government; but what is called the government is a huge machine contrived to be wielded by the people as they shall think proper. In relation to it the people are assumed to be what Almighty God is to the universe, the first cause, the medial cause, the final cause. It emanates from them; it is administered by them, and for them; and, moreover, they are to keep watch and provide for its right administration.

It is a beautiful theory, and would work admirably, if it were not for one little difficulty, namely, - the people are fallible, both individually and collectively, and governed by their passions and interest, which not unfrequently lead them far astray, and produce much mischief. The government must necessarily follow their will; and whenever that will happens to be blinded by passion, or misled by ignorance or interest, the government must inevitably go wrong; and government can never go wrong without doing injustice. The government may be provided for; the people may take care of that; but who or what is to take care of people, and assure us that they will always wield the government so as to promote justice and equality, or maintain order and the equal rights of all, of all classes and interests?

Do not answer by referring us to the virtue and intelligence of the people. We are writing seriously, and have no leisure to enjoy a joke, even if it be a good one. We have too much principle, we hope, to seek to humbug and have had too much experience to be humbugged. We are Americans, American born, American bred, and we love our country, and will, when called upon, defend it, against any and every enemy, to the best of our feeble ability; but, though we by no means rate American virtue and intelligence so low as do those who will abuse us for not rating it higher, we cannot consent to hoodwink ourselves, or to claim for our countrymen a degree of virtue and intelligence they do not possess. We are acquainted with no salutary errors, and are forbidden to seek even a good end by any but honest means. The virtue and intelligence of the American people are not sufficient to secure the free, orderly, and wholesome action of the government; for they do not secure it. The government commits, every now and then, a sad blunder, and the general policy it adopts must prove, in the long run, suicidal. It has adopted a most iniquitous policy, and its most unjust measures are its most popular measures, such as it would be fatal to any man’s political success directly and openly to oppose; and we think we hazard nothing in saying, our free institutions cannot be sustained without an augmentation of popular virtue and intelligence. We do not say the people are not capable of a sufficient degree of virtue and intelligence to sustain a democracy; all we say is, they cannot do it without virtue and intelligence, nor without a higher degree of virtue and intelligence than they have as yet attained to. We do not apprehend that many of our countrymen, and we are sure no one whose own virtue and intelligence entitle his opinion to any weight, will dispute this. Then the question of the means of sustaining our democracy resolves itself into the question of augmenting the virtue and intelligence of the people.

The press makes readers, but does little to make virtuous and intelligent readers. The newspaper press is, for the most part, under the control of men of very ordinary abilities, lax principles, and limited acquirements. It echoes and exaggerates popular errors, and does little or nothing to create a sound public opinion. Your popular literature caters to popular taste, passions, prejudices, ignorance, and errors; it is by no means above the average degree of virtue and intelligence which already obtains, and can do nothing to create a higher standard of virtue or tone of thought. On what, then, are we to rely?

This is why every single different Bishop has a different policy on just about everything. This is why most Orthodox hardly ever go to confession. Most of them only go a few times in their entire lives, and no they are not educated in their faith whatsoever. Eastern Orthodox are bad enough, but Oriental Orthodox are even worse when it comes to this. Even Orthodox apologist can't agree on anything, every single apologist depending on which Nationalist Church he belongs to or Bishop, will have to answer differently on central issues of marriage and all acts pertaining to it. Their theological system is impossible to even attempt to learn, because none of them matter even to the Orthodox. The only good thing that some Orthodox have done is kept reading the Father's of the Church, but even then they totally distort them, but they get an A for effort. Much better then the Protestants in that respect, you really need to study a lot mate, because it seems you care little about faith and more about "your religious experience." You are a classic modernist and even though you feel religious, your belief in true faith is zero. Liturgy is the most perfect expression of faith it is the theology manual for the masses in the essentials of the Catholic faith. I don't see the correlation between the Orthodox faith, and the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom or any of the other liturgies the Orthodox use. Why? Because your religion has been altered by a bunch of older heretics such as Photius, Celarius et al... You have NOTHING in comparison to Our Lady of Guadalupe who helped convert 9 million savages into the Catholic faith, in a short period of 3 years or Fatima a public miracle. The Roman Catholic religion is the only true Church, it has been its faithful guardian a few impostors sitting on the Throne makes little difference. We already have on 1950 years of Catholic magisterial teaching to rely on, you guys only have 7 ecuмenical Councils and a bunch of local synods that serve little purpose to the deposit of faith.

St. Vincent Ferrer converted over 100,000 Jews and this is recorded in the Jєωιѕн encyclopedia itself, when you compare "orthodox" Saints and Catholic Saints, there is little to compare. You have also canonized people that are definitely not Saintly by any stretch of the imagination... Saint Constatine, please man (baptized right before his death pretty much)... The list could go on, but I digress so that I don't make this longer then it should be. Our miracles are verifiable, quantifiable and without a doubt on a massive scale. We have produced such men throughout every century, even as we speak right now there are many Saints even among the Crisis of the Church. Your "saints" might be able to do prodigy miracles, but nothing in the scale of what you see in the Roman Church. Sometimes even Protestants can be able to in the name of Our Blessed Saviour do miracles, but even they will rejected in the last day of judgement as it says in Sacred Scripture.

Matthew 7: [21] Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. [24] Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock...

The papacy is the most important central question, your failure to see its importance in the early history of the Church just shows how little you read the history of the early Church. Do not be like your orthodox brethren that get spoon-fed anti-Romanism a-priori, or distrust for "reason." All your arguments about "corruption" matter little, who cares if you have a sinner ruling the Church of God? Was St. Peter not a sinner? No one ever argued that the Pope was somehow impeccable, but a whole different story is being a heretic which would make you ipso facto a non-Christian and therefore an anti-Pope. Orthodox apologist is an oxy-moron, because they really don't have any foundation to make arguments. You can spend entire centuries trying to pin point what the "universal" Orthodox Church really believes and never find an authorative answer. You can hints, assertions etc... But nothing authorative on just about everything... Many converts from EO feel such a great certainty with Roman Catholicism, it is simple to understand and not a bunch of theological gobbledygook that sounds more like theosophy then theology. Seriously mysticism does not = theological system.

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

"Miracles" such as these are best not held too... the devil can be very tricky. Furthermore, popular apparitions over the past thousand years have often been to children (not monks or others well-formed in Faith... as is the case with the Orthodox), and these apparitions taught strange things that the Orthodox don't see as part of our Faith (example: wearing of the brown scapular. The Theotokos we know doesn't give free passes out of Hades for wearing the thing and praying each day. The soul must be formed to be like Christ... externals have no bearing on this!). One of us is not like the other.

We say that many of your apparitions, in changing the Faith passed on through time (and having these changes enshrined by the Papacy) are demonic.

The miracle in Fatima had countless of people cured of all kinds of illness, one of the 3 kids gave her life to God becoming a nun...but you say it's of the devil??? you should put a little more effort into you research ...convert before it's too late

Indeed...

Two of the children, Francisco and Jacinto, were victim souls who reached the heights of the unitive life and their souls entered eternal beatitude at death. Sr. Lucia entered Holy Religion and underwent untold spiritual trials for the greater glory of Jesus and Mary and for the salvation of souls; being a worthy Carmelite virgin daughter of St. Elias the Prophet, and of St. Teresa of Jesus and St. John of the Cross.

The message of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima is nothing more than the summary of Our Lord teachings in the Holy Gospels, the teachings of the Fathers and the Doctors and spiritual masters, and the teachings of the Apostolic See; and it was made in a simplicity that could only have been of celestial origin and presented the profound truths of the Catholic faith in a practical manner that was easy to comprehend and implement in one's life.

Anyone who says that Our Lady's visitations at Fatima and other approved apparitions were "demonic" is committing unspeakable blasphemy.