Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Hyperdox Nick on October 25, 2013, 04:27:28 PM
-
Hello all!
I thought that it would be interesting to start this thread and see what happens. I'm a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. I converted after a lengthy process of study, prayer, discussions with people on both sides, and at the end of it all attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
From what I've found, the Orthodox have the most historically consistent track record of ecclesiology, doctrine/ teaching of Faith, and practice/ Liturgy (the place where one's Faith is formed). All the changes that resulted in the Great Schism, and further changes afterwards, were solidly on the side of Rome. These changes were built up on the basis of an altered conception of authority, that was not Catholic, in that it was not recognized (by the universal Church... including Christians outside the direct hierarchy of Rome) as part of the Faith passed on from Christ to the Apostles and onwards through time.
Essentially, the Roman Church has been building on sand for the past thousand-plus years. Given the "diversity" in Faith (notably in the Liturgy, but also between various movements within the Church) as well as new versions of the Church every few hundred years or so (keeping up with the times?) it's a house built on sand, currently in the process of collapse.
Since I don't want any future generations of my family to be damaged in Faith when someone tells them that the Novus Ordo (or whatever the new liturgical innovation happens to be) is perfectly fine, "just another tradition", leaving the Roman realm seems necessary.
The Orthodox have their own problems, but these don't seem to seriously impact Faith. Due to their conciliar structure that they've always had... it's easier to correct others for mistakes in Faith than in the hierarchical, authoritative Roman Catholic Church... they've best maintained the Apostolic Faith.
I'm not sure where this post will lead. My intent is less to convert people (that's the job of the Holy Spirit), but more to get all of this out there to a semi-sympathetic audience. Any discussion from here, I hope, will lead people towards Truth.
-
I know a little about Eastern Orthodoxy and I have a few relatives who are members of one of the Eastern Orthodox churches (I forget which one). I think they are closer to the truth than the Novus Ordo. When you were Catholic were you a member of the Novus Ordo sect which most members here consider to be illegitimate and no longer the true Church of Christ? or were you a member of one of the more traditional Catholic groups such as the SSPX or the CMRI who try to follow the Church's teachings from before the second vatican council?
-
Question? there are many rites that come under "Eastern" where are you?
-
Question? there are many rites that come under "Eastern" where are you?
His introduction post says he's OCA.
Nick, it's good that you found this forum. Considering that you do not seem to have ever been exposed to the Catholic Faith in its integrity (having come from the Novus Ordo), hopefully your time here will result in the illumination of your mind and soul by Our Lord Jesus Christ. May the All-Holy Theotokos (Deipara immaculata) place you under her mantle. :smile:
-
:heretic:
-
The OCA is the Novus Ordo of the Orthodox, by the way.
The ROCOR is the most traditional of all jurisdictions.
-
Ok, fill me in! I think we're less divergent than it may seem on the surface. I've never much explored the world of Sedevacantism or SSPX. I always thought it was like the Roman Catholic equivalent of army bootcamp.
Can we agree that many, if not most of the current Roman Catholic practices misrepresent the Faith? And that Faith is a living connection with the Triune God?
-
Can we agree that many, if not most of the current Roman Catholic practices misrepresent the Faith? And that Faith is a living connection with the Triune God?
I agree that after Vatican II, the Novus Ordo misrepresents the faith. I believe that the Novus Ordo religion is a different religion with no faith that replaced the Catholic religion and that nearly all of the faithful who attend the Novus Ordo and nearly all the "priests" in the Novus Ordo in truth have no faith at all. But I believe that the religion of the Catholic Church before Vatican II was the true religion which you would not agree with because you believe the Catholic Church has been a false Church for many centuries. I am not an expert though, there are many others here who know more about the faith than I do.
-
I agree that after Vatican II in the Novus Ordo misrepresents the faith. I believe that the Novus Ordo religion is a different religion with no faith that replaced the Catholic religion and that nearly all of the faithful who attend the Novus Ordo and nearly all the "priests" in the Novus Ordo in truth have no faith at all. But I believe that the religion of the Catholic Church before Vatican II was the true religion which you would not agree with because you believe the Catholic Church has been a false Church for many centuries.
No, not all false, just in schism and drifting around a bit pre-V2. From what I've heard, when Orthodox visit Roman Catholic churches for Latin Mass, they still "get it"... some of the emphases of Faith are different and we miss having icons, but overall it's at least familiar to a degree.
-
The OCA is the Novus Ordo of the Orthodox, by the way.
The ROCOR is the most traditional of all jurisdictions.
Well, besides the Old Calendarists and Old Believers, both of whom have "anathematized" both ROCOR (which has now been re-united to the Moscow Patriarchate) and OCA. The former is rejected by the Old Calendarists because it is staffed by KGB agents; therefore, on account of openly being Donatists, the Old Calendarists reject all of their sacraments, including baptism, as invalid. On top of this, everybody else adopted the Gregorian Calendar and therefore are rejected by the Old Calendarists as heretics, once again with entirely invalid sacraments -- no priests, no baptism, nothing.
Old Believers of course hold to the same Donatist error, but they are even more extreme, their schism (within a schism) going back to the XVIIth century reform of the Russian liturgy to unify it with Greek praxis, from which it had at some point diverged. This introduces the problem, too, of whose practice was more ancient. Was the true practice of crossing oneself lost ? Were the true prayers lost ? There is no way to affirm the matter one way or another without an appeal to scholarship or to an a priori declaration of victory for one side or another. Ultimately, the Faith is not based on any consistent and coherent ancient tradition rooted in the Apostles, then; one's proximate rule of faith is in a mass of probabilities, the sympathy to which is often determined by ethnic affiliation. As such, some Old Believers believe there are no priests left on the earth. Like the Old Calendarists, they have anthematized both ROCOR, OCA, and all the rest; but they have also anathematized the Old Calendarists, as well as other Old Believers. And vice versa !
There is nobody within the falsely so-called "Orthodox" churches that could possibly gainsay these anathemae, since amongst their factions there is no unique arbiter and judge of matters of Faith endowed with divine authority over the various different bodies who can pass a final decision on these matters. The only thing that the New Calendar Greeks or others who have strayed from the ancient liturgical praxis of either the Russian or Greek liturgies could possibly do is anathematize them back. But who is right ? One would necessarily be at an impasse to find an Apostolic foundation for any legal mechanism that would be supplied to the faithful as a recourse for this disunity of faith, governance, and liturgy. The only recourse, then, is energetic repetition of one's position and the threat of violence. Usually, if a union is forged by a large number of the Orthodox, it is reliant on political pressure and careerist compromise to push it through. One's confidence in one's faith is therefore unsustainable within the Eastern sects, since it is demonstrably compromised by intrigue and ex post facto appeals to consensus and institutional inertia. Perhaps that is why wars against perceived foreign enemies and ethnic chauvinism have become such vital elements wherever there are proud "Orthodox" to insist on their membership in the True Church. That is one of the truest ways to ensure enthusiastic membership -- to root it not in the pure doctrines that have been preserved from the fathers but rather to moor it in ethnic pride, carnal concerns, and blatant fideism.
This absurd state of affairs, of course, is belied by the existence of a Church that has a systematic theology and legal tradition taught and preserved by a unique head whose office therefore assures unity of Faith, of governance, and of sacraments -- and this office is backed up by the revelations within the Holy Scriptures and by immemorial Tradition dating to the earliest times and then shining forth in the writings and confessions of the Church Fathers. In the fact of this, the Orthodox have no systematic theological system or ecclesial authority to give weight to their appeal. They only have their insistence on being right, a position backed up by nothing but their own word. The Orthodox are similar to the fideistic Protestant fundamentalists in that way, then. Perhaps that is why they appeal so often to liturgical spirituality in the face of metaphysical arguments. Ultimately, when the original schism is more about being Greek or Egyptian or Russian -- rather than being under one of those Latin scoundrels (condemned as such a priori, but such is the way of things) -- than about the Faith, that is all one has : Vague appeals to mystery, belief in the novelties of divine energies, uncreated light, hesychasm, rejection of Purgatory/Tollhouses, rejection of the Immaculate Conception (All-Holiness of Mary), rejection of the Assumption, etc. When one's faith is ultimately rooted in not being subject to the Petrine See of Rome, soon one's Faith morphs into a giant reaction to and rejection of whatever the Latins do. And now the Greeks reject teachings held by the unanimous moral consensus of the Fathers. But don't worry, at least they aren't subject to the "tyranny" of "Roman legalism" which is untrustworthy -- never mind the explicit promise of Christ that the Holy Ghost would always preserve the Faith of St Peter.
-
I agree that after Vatican II in the Novus Ordo misrepresents the faith. I believe that the Novus Ordo religion is a different religion with no faith that replaced the Catholic religion and that nearly all of the faithful who attend the Novus Ordo and nearly all the "priests" in the Novus Ordo in truth have no faith at all. But I believe that the religion of the Catholic Church before Vatican II was the true religion which you would not agree with because you believe the Catholic Church has been a false Church for many centuries.
No, not all false, just in schism and drifting around a bit pre-V2. From what I've heard, when Orthodox visit Roman Catholic churches for Latin Mass, they still "get it"... some of the emphases of Faith are different and we miss having icons, but overall it's at least familiar to a degree.
We use icons, they just haven't been popular in liturgical art in recent times. Much like how the Russians stopped widely creating and revering new icons for centuries after the Romanov dynasty rose to power. They usually put large paintings in the great churches of Saint-Petersburg and Moscow, etc., and this apparently for several centuries. Thankfully, the simple Russian people did not know the difference and most believed they were Catholics in union with the Holy See all along (at least implicitly).*
* See the fourth post on this thread (http://www.sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1497&sid=95eaaeefe2f9505b4ac32ec830419c5d).
-
I have a question for you, Hyperdox Nick. Many of us, who call ourselves traditional Catholics believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is not valid, and also that the New rites of ordination of Priests and consecration of Bishops are also invalid. So some of us believe that most of the priests in the Novus Ordo are not true priests. What do the Orthodox believe about this? Do you believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is a true valid Mass? and do you believe that priests ordained in the New rite of ordination and Bishops consecrated in the new rite are valid priests and bishops?
-
The OCA is the Novus Ordo of the Orthodox, by the way.
The ROCOR is the most traditional of all jurisdictions.
Well, besides the Old Calendarists and Old Believers, both of whom have "anathematized" both ROCOR (which has now been re-united to the Moscow Patriarchate) and OCA. The former is rejected by the Old Calendarists because it is staffed by KGB agents; therefore, on account of openly being Donatists, the Old Calendarists reject all of their sacraments, including baptism, as invalid. On top of this, everybody else adopted the Gregorian Calendar and therefore are rejected by the Old Calendarists as heretics, once again with entirely invalid sacraments -- no priests, no baptism, nothing.
Old Believers of course hold to the same Donatist error, but they are even more extreme, their schism (within a schism) going back to the XVIIth century reform of the Russian liturgy to unify it with Greek praxis, from which it had at some point diverged. This introduces the problem, too, of whose practice was more ancient. Was the true practice of crossing oneself lost ? Were the true prayers lost ? There is no way to affirm the matter one way or another without an appeal to scholarship or to an a priori declaration of victory for one side or another. Ultimately, the Faith is not based on any consistent and coherent ancient tradition rooted in the Apostles, then; one's proximate rule of faith is in a mass of probabilities, the sympathy to which is often determined by ethnic affiliation. As such, some Old Believers believe there are no priests left on the earth. Like the Old Calendarists, they have anthematized both ROCOR, OCA, and all the rest; but they have also anathematized the Old Calendarists, as well as other Old Believers. And vice versa !
There is nobody within the falsely so-called "Orthodox" churches that could possibly gainsay these anathemae, since amongst their factions there is no unique arbiter and judge of matters of Faith endowed with divine authority over the various different bodies who can pass a final decision on these matters. The only thing that the New Calendar Greeks or others who have strayed from the ancient liturgical praxis of either the Russian or Greek liturgies could possibly do is anathematize them back. But who is right ? One would necessarily be at an impasse to find an Apostolic foundation for any legal mechanism that would be supplied to the faithful as a recourse for this disunity of faith, governance, and liturgy. The only recourse, then, is energetic repetition of one's position and the threat of violence. Usually, if a union is forged by a large number of the Orthodox, it is reliant on political pressure and careerist compromise to push it through. One's confidence in one's faith is therefore unsustainable within the Eastern sects, since it is demonstrably compromised by intrigue and ex post facto appeals to consensus and institutional inertia. Perhaps that is why wars against perceived foreign enemies and ethnic chauvinism have become such vital elements wherever there are proud "Orthodox" to insist on their membership in the True Church. That is one of the truest ways to ensure enthusiastic membership -- to root it not in the pure doctrines that have been preserved from the fathers but rather to moor it in ethnic pride, carnal concerns, and blatant fideism.
This absurd state of affairs, of course, is belied by the existence of a Church that has a systematic theology and legal tradition taught and preserved by a unique head whose office therefore assures unity of Faith, of governance, and of sacraments -- and this office is backed up by the revelations within the Holy Scriptures and by immemorial Tradition dating to the earliest times and then shining forth in the writings and confessions of the Church Fathers. In the fact of this, the Orthodox have no systematic theological system or ecclesial authority to give weight to their appeal. They only have their insistence on being right, a position backed up by nothing but their own word. The Orthodox are similar to the fideistic Protestant fundamentalists in that way, then. Perhaps that is why they appeal so often to liturgical spirituality in the face of metaphysical arguments. Ultimately, when the original schism is more about being Greek or Egyptian or Russian -- rather than being under one of those Latin scoundrels (condemned as such a priori, but such is the way of things) -- than about the Faith, that is all one has : Vague appeals to mystery, belief in the novelties of divine energies, uncreated light, hesychasm, rejection of Purgatory/Tollhouses, rejection of the Immaculate Conception (All-Holiness of Mary), rejection of the Assumption, etc. When one's faith is ultimately rooted in not being subject to the Petrine See of Rome, soon one's Faith morphs into a giant reaction to and rejection of whatever the Latins do. And now the Greeks reject teachings held by the unanimous moral consensus of the Fathers. But don't worry, at least they aren't subject to the "tyranny" of "Roman legalism" which is untrustworthy -- never mind the explicit promise of Christ that the Holy Ghost would always preserve the Faith of St Peter.
Well, what would you like me to say? Is unity of Communion really more substantive than unity of Faith? Are the metaphysical arguments stronger than the Holy Spirit, who shapes people in the image of Christ during Divine Liturgy?
-
I have a question for you, Hyperdox Nick. Many of us, who call ourselves traditional Catholics believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is not valid, and also that the New rites of ordination of Priests and consecration of Bishops are also invalid. So some of us believe that most of the priests in the Novus Ordo are not true priests. What do the Orthodox believe about this? Do you believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is a true valid Mass? and do you believe that priests ordained in the New rite of ordination and Bishops consecrated in the new rite are valid priests and bishops?
Well, we hope and pray that people still receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Novus Ordo Mass, that they may be healed in body and soul. We don't use terms like "valid" or "invalid" since legal categories aren't the most substantive thing... the True Faith is what's most substantive. Usually, if you were to press the question, we'd say that based on the apostolic succession of bishops and the priests they ordain and their intent to consecrate the Eucharist (even though they are deficient in Faith), the Eucharist is still the Body and Blood of Christ. But really, the current Western innovations aren't our prerogative, and we don't want any part in them.
The Novus Ordo Mass certainly is lacking as an expression of Faith, and most Orthodox also regret that the Latin Mass was thrown out, since it was necessary to keep the Western world spiritually afloat.
-
Well, what would you like me to say?
I would like you to reflect on what I wrote.
Is unity of Communion really more substantive than unity of Faith?
One must have unity of Faith to have unity of communion
Are the metaphysical arguments stronger than the Holy Spirit, who shapes people in the image of Christ during Divine Liturgy?
Metaphysical and theological arguments are no threat to the Holy Ghost, since the Truth cannot contradict itself. If the mind cannot know the Truth, however, and if Faith and reason can contradict one another, then no true Faith is possible, and one's religion is being made up as one goes along. In the Catholic Church, we have both the sanctifying power of the grace of the Holy Ghost and we affirm that the True Faith appeals to the rational faculties of the human mind. Thus, the Faith should make sense, otherwise there would be no compelling force that would move one to believe in it beyond some charismatic experience of grace that manifests itself in a manner entirely beyond examination.
If that is the case, though, then what business do you have defending your sect's claims or engaging in this discourse at all ? It wouldn't matter if one was Greek or Russian or Spanish, since we would all basically be Montanists or Pentecostals, anyway. A Faith based on private experiences rather than public Revelation and authoritative teaching is, for the record, also vulnerable to the claims of Mohammed of the Hagarenes and Joseph Smith of the Mormons, both of whom claimed that a private faith experience of a new revelation. How could I say that they were wrong in their testimony ?
No, the Church is a public and visible body/assembly (ecclesia) of the faithful followers of Christ who have been regenerated by Baptism. As such, they must bear the marks of unity through a common Faith, common sacraments, and common jurisdiction (one cannot claim to be a representative of the Church unless he shares the same mission as the Apostles, which necessitates continuity from theme). The Church must bear the four marks of the Mystical Body of Christ, namely it must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. No body that cannot prove that it is the same institution with the same sacraments and same doctrines and same offices as those passed down by the Apostles could ever claim to be the Catholic Church.
The soul's deification through the liturgical ceremonies by which the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity is increased is of course good (indeed, the highest of goods to be had), but this can only be found in the Church, and the Church is recognizable and its doctrines reasonable. Other formulations of what the Church is and how the Faith is are incoherent and impossible. As such, there is no holiness in one who is united to the Catholic Church, the Ark of Salvation. Outside of it, all perish in the Flood.
-
Then we agree on everything! :)
With the Mormons, they teach in a way not in accordance with the Faith passed on through time from the Apostles. They are heretics... it's that simple.
We're not talking about a private experience of Faith. It's one that's lived and experienced in the context of living Sacred Tradition extending right back to the Apostles, in a community of believers.
-
The OCA is the Novus Ordo of the Orthodox, by the way.
The ROCOR is the most traditional of all jurisdictions.
Well, besides the Old Calendarists and Old Believers, both of whom have "anathematized" both ROCOR (which has now been re-united to the Moscow Patriarchate) and OCA. The former is rejected by the Old Calendarists because it is staffed by KGB agents; therefore, on account of openly being Donatists, the Old Calendarists reject all of their sacraments, including baptism, as invalid. On top of this, everybody else adopted the Gregorian Calendar and therefore are rejected by the Old Calendarists as heretics, once again with entirely invalid sacraments -- no priests, no baptism, nothing.
Old Believers of course hold to the same Donatist error, but they are even more extreme, their schism (within a schism) going back to the XVIIth century reform of the Russian liturgy to unify it with Greek praxis, from which it had at some point diverged. This introduces the problem, too, of whose practice was more ancient. Was the true practice of crossing oneself lost ? Were the true prayers lost ? There is no way to affirm the matter one way or another without an appeal to scholarship or to an a priori declaration of victory for one side or another. Ultimately, the Faith is not based on any consistent and coherent ancient tradition rooted in the Apostles, then; one's proximate rule of faith is in a mass of probabilities, the sympathy to which is often determined by ethnic affiliation. As such, some Old Believers believe there are no priests left on the earth. Like the Old Calendarists, they have anthematized both ROCOR, OCA, and all the rest; but they have also anathematized the Old Calendarists, as well as other Old Believers. And vice versa !
There is nobody within the falsely so-called "Orthodox" churches that could possibly gainsay these anathemae, since amongst their factions there is no unique arbiter and judge of matters of Faith endowed with divine authority over the various different bodies who can pass a final decision on these matters. The only thing that the New Calendar Greeks or others who have strayed from the ancient liturgical praxis of either the Russian or Greek liturgies could possibly do is anathematize them back. But who is right ? One would necessarily be at an impasse to find an Apostolic foundation for any legal mechanism that would be supplied to the faithful as a recourse for this disunity of faith, governance, and liturgy. The only recourse, then, is energetic repetition of one's position and the threat of violence. Usually, if a union is forged by a large number of the Orthodox, it is reliant on political pressure and careerist compromise to push it through. One's confidence in one's faith is therefore unsustainable within the Eastern sects, since it is demonstrably compromised by intrigue and ex post facto appeals to consensus and institutional inertia. Perhaps that is why wars against perceived foreign enemies and ethnic chauvinism have become such vital elements wherever there are proud "Orthodox" to insist on their membership in the True Church. That is one of the truest ways to ensure enthusiastic membership -- to root it not in the pure doctrines that have been preserved from the fathers but rather to moor it in ethnic pride, carnal concerns, and blatant fideism.
This absurd state of affairs, of course, is belied by the existence of a Church that has a systematic theology and legal tradition taught and preserved by a unique head whose office therefore assures unity of Faith, of governance, and of sacraments -- and this office is backed up by the revelations within the Holy Scriptures and by immemorial Tradition dating to the earliest times and then shining forth in the writings and confessions of the Church Fathers. In the fact of this, the Orthodox have no systematic theological system or ecclesial authority to give weight to their appeal. They only have their insistence on being right, a position backed up by nothing but their own word. The Orthodox are similar to the fideistic Protestant fundamentalists in that way, then. Perhaps that is why they appeal so often to liturgical spirituality in the face of metaphysical arguments. Ultimately, when the original schism is more about being Greek or Egyptian or Russian -- rather than being under one of those Latin scoundrels (condemned as such a priori, but such is the way of things) -- than about the Faith, that is all one has : Vague appeals to mystery, belief in the novelties of divine energies, uncreated light, hesychasm, rejection of Purgatory/Tollhouses, rejection of the Immaculate Conception (All-Holiness of Mary), rejection of the Assumption, etc. When one's faith is ultimately rooted in not being subject to the Petrine See of Rome, soon one's Faith morphs into a giant reaction to and rejection of whatever the Latins do. And now the Greeks reject teachings held by the unanimous moral consensus of the Fathers. But don't worry, at least they aren't subject to the "tyranny" of "Roman legalism" which is untrustworthy -- never mind the explicit promise of Christ that the Holy Ghost would always preserve the Faith of St Peter.
Wait a second! So, you think that the regular Novus Ordo Mass is passing on a false Faith? And, you're not in unity with them or the current Popes? Then where's the unity and visibility in your Catholic Church?
-
Then we agree on everything! :)
Obviously that is not the case.
With the Mormons, they teach in a way not in accordance with the Faith passed on through time from the Apostles. They are heretics... it's that simple.
The problem is in who gets to determine the content of the Faith. If there is no single head who can pass final judgments on disputed points of Faith, i.e., if there is no universal teacher who has universal jurisdiction over the Church, then a single Faith that is continuous through time cannot be assured with moral confidence. There must be an institutional unity for there to be a confessional unity. The Orthodox have no mechanism for determining the content of the Faith except an empty appeal to Tradition, but when they disagree amongst themselves there is no recourse for them. They thus are derailed into a faith that is re-interpreted by them in novel ways as new difficulties arise. Who amongst them could make any final decision and so unite them ? Each bishop is at an impasse.
As such, the Orthodox are uniquely subject to fideism and cultural inertia, since they cannot appeal to any systematic and universal rule of Faith. They cannot develop solutions to explain the metaphysical ramifications of this or that doctrine, such as the Church Fathers under the guidance of the Roman See did. As such, the Orthodox faith is irrational, since it is not ultimately something that can be examined and explained by reason guided by and grounded in Revelation. On the contrary, it becomes not a reasonable but merely a ceremonial religion that justifies itself (in a circular manner) but cannot be justified to others by appealing to reason. One instead becomes part of some Orthodox camp, rather than a universal Church. It follows, then, that Eastern schismatic churches would invent such novel absurdities as allowing divorce and artificial birth control in order to better follow "the heart." No authority amongst them or rational discourse could gainsay the appeal of so-and-so's heart. Here is an argument based purely on an aestheticised spirituality and nothing else; faith, then, becomes the opponent of reason in the Orthodox... "system." There is no connection to the Faith and practice of the Apostles there.
We're not talking about a private experience of Faith.
Not as private as the Mormons, but private nonetheless, since ultimately the numerous Orthodox confessions are not based on a Faith assured by the universal Church. They are based on something beyond the grasp of public teaching and reason and that cannot be explained in its origin or its dynamics. It is located somehow in the liturgy, which is explained by the bishops, who are beholden to the liturgy, but none of whom can make their doctrinal judgments to be obeyed. In the Orthodox scheme, a truly catholic Church is impossible. There is no question of inherent credibility, one just take's another's word for it, full stop. Where the authority behind his word originates is anybody's guess.
It's one that's lived and experienced in the context of living Sacred Tradition extending right back to the Apostles, in a community of believers.
Says who ? The point of divergence is that you seem to be advancing a type of fideism that rejects metaphysical arguments, systematic theology, and a comprehensive legal corpus. There is none amongst your schismatic sect that can demonstrate a clear connection to the Apostles in Faith. The marks of the Church are absent from your groups. These things can only be found in the Catholic Church founded on St Peter.
-
Then we agree on everything! :)
Obviously that is not the case.
With the Mormons, they teach in a way not in accordance with the Faith passed on through time from the Apostles. They are heretics... it's that simple.
The problem is in who gets to determine the content of the Faith. If there is no single head who can pass final judgments on disputed points of Faith, i.e., if there is no universal teacher who has universal jurisdiction over the Church, then a single Faith that is continuous through time cannot be assured with moral confidence. There must be an institutional unity for there to be a confessional unity. The Orthodox have no mechanism for determining the content of the Faith except an appeal to Tradition, but when they disagree amongst themselves there is no recourse for them. They thus are derailed into a faith that is re-interpreted by them in novel ways as new difficulties arise. Who amongst them could make any final decision and so unite them ? Each bishop is at an impasse.
As such, the Orthodox are uniquely subject to fideism and cultural inertia, since they cannot appeal to any systematic and universal rule of Faith. They cannot develop solutions to explain the metaphysical ramifications of this or that doctrine, such as the Church Fathers under the guidance of the Roman See did. As such, the Orthodox faith is irrational, since it is not ultimately something that can be examined and explained by reason guided by and grounded in Revelation. On the contrary, it becomes not a reasonable but merely a ceremonial religion that justifies itself (in a circular manner) but cannot be justified to others by appealing to reason. One instead becomes part of some Orthodox camp, rather than a universal Church. It follows, then, that Eastern schismatic churches would invent such novel absurdities as allowing divorce and artificial birth control in order to better follow "the heart." No authority amongst them or rational discourse could gain say the appeal of so-and-so's heart. Here is an argument based purely on an aestheticised spirituality and nothing else; Faith, then, becomes the opponent of reason in the Orthodox... "system." There is no connection to the Faith and practice of the Apostles there.
We're not talking about a private experience of Faith.
Not as private as the Mormons, but private nonetheless, since ultimately the numerous Orthodox confessions are not based on a Faith assured by the universal Church. They are based on something beyond the grasp of public teaching and reason and that cannot be explained in its origin or its dynamics. It is located somehow in the liturgy, which is explained by the bishops, who are beholden to the liturgy, but none of whom can make their doctrinal judgments to be obeyed. In the Orthodox scheme, a truly catholic Church is impossible. There is no question of inherent credibility, one just take's another's word for it, full stop. Where the authority behind his word originates is anybody's guess.
It's one that's lived and experienced in the context of living Sacred Tradition extending right back to the Apostles, in a community of believers.
Says who ? The point of divergence is that you seem to be advancing a type of fideism that rejects metaphysical arguments, systematic theology, and a comprehensive legal corpus. There is none amongst your schismatic sect that can demonstrate a clear connection to the Apostles in Faith. The marks of the Church are absent from your groups. These things can only be found in the Catholic Church founded on St Peter.
1. Yes, you've got one Pope (who most of you don't seem to except), but in your absolute appeal to a worldly authority this is quite like Protestantism and their reliance on the Bible. We've got bishops and priests as authorities, in the same manner as Christians have always had. Refer to my post on the importance of conciliarity (aka Catholicity)...
2. No, it's super-rational. Reference here to Thomas Aquinas and referring to his writings as "straw".
3. Authority is from Christ Himself, and an understanding of Faith through Tradition (is what we're doing truly consistent with the God we know and what's always been taught?).
4. Yes, the Orthodox Church is based on the universal Orthodox Faith. Metaphysical arguments, systematic theology, and a comprehensive legal corpus are innovations post-Schism. History demonstrates the apostolic succession of Orthodox bishops just as clearly as Roman Catholic bishops... we even have two Petrine Sees. :)
-
Essentially, the Roman Church has been building on sand for the past thousand-plus years. Given the "diversity" in Faith (notably in the Liturgy, but also between various movements within the Church) as well as new versions of the Church every few hundred years or so (keeping up with the times?) it's a house built on sand, currently in the process of collapse.
A new version of the Church every 300 years? Source?
Any issues with the Catholic Church is directly related to VII and the few decades leading up to it.
You, like so many other disillusioned Catholics, have made the wrong choice to go "Orthodox".
At first your post here rubbed me the wrong way, but maybe you are exactly where you need to be. I will leave that in the hands of others who are much more capable than I am (as I am still sorting through this crap).
-
Orthodoxy is also now experiencing a division between traditionalists and modernists, just like Catholicism.
From what I understand the ROCOR ( Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) is the most traditional jurisdiction in that they are keeping the Old Calendar (as opposed as the Gregorian calendar - this is important, since the Orthodox bases much of his life in the Calendar of the Church, mainly for feasting). If you attend the ROCOR liturgy, you will find no pews, no organs or other instruments, the clergy will have long hair and beard. The Liturgy will be in Old Slavonic, not English.
When you go to a liturgy in the more liberalized, modernist jurisdictions such as Antiochian, Greek or OCA, the experience is entirely different. Liturgy is held in English and you will find pews to seat, organs, clergy with short hair, no beard, etc, etc. It does resemble the Novus Ordo masses or Protestant services.
Another MAJOR difference between the traditional Orthodox and the modernist, is that to the traditional Orthodox ecuмenism is an outright heresy, condemned by innumerable Councils who clearly forbid praying with heretics, whereas the modernist Orthodox (Antiochian, Greek, and OCA jurisdictions) are very fond of the ecuмenical movement.
I am not sure if OCA (Orthodox Church in America) now has a Canonical status within Orthodoxy because before it did not even have it.
-
Essentially, the Roman Church has been building on sand for the past thousand-plus years. Given the "diversity" in Faith (notably in the Liturgy, but also between various movements within the Church) as well as new versions of the Church every few hundred years or so (keeping up with the times?) it's a house built on sand, currently in the process of collapse.
A new version of the Church every 300 years? Source?
Any issues with the Catholic Church is directly related to VII and the few decades leading up to it.
You, like so many other disillusioned Catholics, have made the wrong choice to go "Orthodox".
At first your post here rubbed me the wrong way, but maybe you are exactly where you need to be. I will leave that in the hands of others who are much more capable than I am (as I am still sorting through this crap).
Well, the arguments and historical facts are all online, and there are very good and knowledgeable priests on both sides. You'll have some trouble finding faithful Orthodox to Roman Catholic converts to talk to though. It's quite possible to sort things through, and you have my encouragement and prayers to do so.
Wrong choice? I've done my best to ensure that my children, grandchildren, and so on are in a place where they will be raised solidly in Faith. They will never, with my blessing or the blessing of my Church, attend Protestant-style Novus Ordo or Charismatic events that mis-form Faith.
-
Orthodoxy is also now experiencing a division between traditionalists and modernists, just like Catholicism.
From what I understand the ROCOR ( Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) is the most traditional jurisdiction in that they are keeping the Old Calendar (as opposed as the Gregorian calendar - this is important, since the Orthodox bases much of his life in the Calendar of the Church, mainly for feasting). If you attend the ROCOR liturgy, you will find no pews, no organs or other instruments, the clergy will have long hair and beard. The Liturgy will be in Old Slavonic, not English.
When you go to a liturgy in the more liberalized, modernists jurisdictions such as Antiochian, Greek, OCA, the experience is entirely different. Liturgy is held in English and you will find pews to seat, organs, clergy with short hair, no beard, etc, etc. It does resemble the Novus Ordo masses.
Another MAJOR difference between the traditional Orthodox and the modernist, is that to the traditional Orthodox ecuмenism is an outright heresy, condemned by innumerable Councils who clearly forbid praying with heretics, whereas the modernist Orthodox (Antiochian, Greek, and OCA jurisdictions) are very fond of the ecuмenical movement.
I am not sure if OCA (Orthodox Church in America) now has a Canonical status within Orthodoxy because before it did not even have it.
Yes, OCA is canonical, yes they are on the New Calendar, yes it's in English, no there are no organs or pews at the two OCA parishes in Vancouver, and no they are not modernists. Ecuмenism is a tricky topic, since there's a type that relativizes differences, and a type that seeks to resolve them in a manner in accordance with the Faith and Tradition.
Source: OCA is my jurisdiction.
Then there's a whole other set of problems, jurisdictional fights, and squabbles over non-issues such as beards.
ROCOR is on the Old Calendar, but at the monastery I visited last month it's also all in English, and the Abbot is also a convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy.
-
The OCA is the Novus Ordo of the Orthodox, by the way.
The ROCOR is the most traditional of all jurisdictions.
Well, besides the Old Calendarists and Old Believers, both of whom have "anathematized" both ROCOR (which has now been re-united to the Moscow Patriarchate) and OCA. The former is rejected by the Old Calendarists because it is staffed by KGB agents; therefore, on account of openly being Donatists, the Old Calendarists reject all of their sacraments, including baptism, as invalid. On top of this, everybody else adopted the Gregorian Calendar and therefore are rejected by the Old Calendarists as heretics, once again with entirely invalid sacraments -- no priests, no baptism, nothing.
Old Believers of course hold to the same Donatist error, but they are even more extreme, their schism (within a schism) going back to the XVIIth century reform of the Russian liturgy to unify it with Greek praxis, from which it had at some point diverged. This introduces the problem, too, of whose practice was more ancient. Was the true practice of crossing oneself lost ? Were the true prayers lost ? There is no way to affirm the matter one way or another without an appeal to scholarship or to an a priori declaration of victory for one side or another. Ultimately, the Faith is not based on any consistent and coherent ancient tradition rooted in the Apostles, then; one's proximate rule of faith is in a mass of probabilities, the sympathy to which is often determined by ethnic affiliation. As such, some Old Believers believe there are no priests left on the earth. Like the Old Calendarists, they have anthematized both ROCOR, OCA, and all the rest; but they have also anathematized the Old Calendarists, as well as other Old Believers. And vice versa !
There is nobody within the falsely so-called "Orthodox" churches that could possibly gainsay these anathemae, since amongst their factions there is no unique arbiter and judge of matters of Faith endowed with divine authority over the various different bodies who can pass a final decision on these matters. The only thing that the New Calendar Greeks or others who have strayed from the ancient liturgical praxis of either the Russian or Greek liturgies could possibly do is anathematize them back. But who is right ? One would necessarily be at an impasse to find an Apostolic foundation for any legal mechanism that would be supplied to the faithful as a recourse for this disunity of faith, governance, and liturgy. The only recourse, then, is energetic repetition of one's position and the threat of violence. Usually, if a union is forged by a large number of the Orthodox, it is reliant on political pressure and careerist compromise to push it through. One's confidence in one's faith is therefore unsustainable within the Eastern sects, since it is demonstrably compromised by intrigue and ex post facto appeals to consensus and institutional inertia. Perhaps that is why wars against perceived foreign enemies and ethnic chauvinism have become such vital elements wherever there are proud "Orthodox" to insist on their membership in the True Church. That is one of the truest ways to ensure enthusiastic membership -- to root it not in the pure doctrines that have been preserved from the fathers but rather to moor it in ethnic pride, carnal concerns, and blatant fideism.
This absurd state of affairs, of course, is belied by the existence of a Church that has a systematic theology and legal tradition taught and preserved by a unique head whose office therefore assures unity of Faith, of governance, and of sacraments -- and this office is backed up by the revelations within the Holy Scriptures and by immemorial Tradition dating to the earliest times and then shining forth in the writings and confessions of the Church Fathers. In the fact of this, the Orthodox have no systematic theological system or ecclesial authority to give weight to their appeal. They only have their insistence on being right, a position backed up by nothing but their own word. The Orthodox are similar to the fideistic Protestant fundamentalists in that way, then. Perhaps that is why they appeal so often to liturgical spirituality in the face of metaphysical arguments. Ultimately, when the original schism is more about being Greek or Egyptian or Russian -- rather than being under one of those Latin scoundrels (condemned as such a priori, but such is the way of things) -- than about the Faith, that is all one has : Vague appeals to mystery, belief in the novelties of divine energies, uncreated light, hesychasm, rejection of Purgatory/Tollhouses, rejection of the Immaculate Conception (All-Holiness of Mary), rejection of the Assumption, etc. When one's faith is ultimately rooted in not being subject to the Petrine See of Rome, soon one's Faith morphs into a giant reaction to and rejection of whatever the Latins do. And now the Greeks reject teachings held by the unanimous moral consensus of the Fathers. But don't worry, at least they aren't subject to the "tyranny" of "Roman legalism" which is untrustworthy -- never mind the explicit promise of Christ that the Holy Ghost would always preserve the Faith of St Peter.
um, yeah, what Joseph said. As someone who nearly apostatized and almost "doxed" I can vouch for most of what he wrote, especially the charges of legalism. That is why you no longer see much opposition to womyn's ordination, abortion or sodomite marriage, despite reassurances from the FIRST THINGS crowd. Good thing it was the OCA I almost joined instead of another jurisdiction, otherwise I would have successfully crossed the Bosporus. A friendly lot the OCA :rolleyes:
-
Nick, most traditional Catholics don't accept the present pope, except the SSPX who accept but resist his teachings when they are not in harmony with what Christ taught and what the Church has taught through thousands of years.
I honestly don't believe that you want to LEARN about the Roman Catholic Church here but want to argue your case for the schismatic churches.
If you're so set that you're right and we're wrong, I can only ask - why are you here on a Roman Catholic forum?! Don't the 'Orthodox' have forums that you can chew the fat on?
There's a lot I can say about your arguments, but I have neither the time nor inclination to engage you. It's just too wearisome. Been there, done that. Even went to a Greek Orthodox Church for awhile until I dug deeper & prayed very hard. So my advice to you would be to pray harder & read less. Intellectually you already have what you need to know. Now put yourself in the hands of the Holy Ghost.
God Bless.
-
Orthodoxy is also now experiencing a division between traditionalists and modernists, just like Catholicism.
From what I understand the ROCOR ( Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) is the most traditional jurisdiction in that they are keeping the Old Calendar (as opposed as the Gregorian calendar - this is important, since the Orthodox bases much of his life in the Calendar of the Church, mainly for feasting). If you attend the ROCOR liturgy, you will find no pews, no organs or other instruments, the clergy will have long hair and beard. The Liturgy will be in Old Slavonic, not English.
When you go to a liturgy in the more liberalized, modernist jurisdictions such as Antiochian, Greek or OCA, the experience is entirely different. Liturgy is held in English and you will find pews to seat, organs, clergy with short hair, no beard, etc, etc. It does resemble the Novus Ordo masses or Protestant services.
Another MAJOR difference between the traditional Orthodox and the modernist, is that to the traditional Orthodox ecuмenism is an outright heresy, condemned by innumerable Councils who clearly forbid praying with heretics, whereas the modernist Orthodox (Antiochian, Greek, and OCA jurisdictions) are very fond of the ecuмenical movement.
I am not sure if OCA (Orthodox Church in America) now has a Canonical status within Orthodoxy because before it did not even have it.
One OCA parish I visited had for a pastor a "convert" from Presbyterianism. He was a Youth pastor. His liturgies had a decidedly happy-clappy feel to them.
The thing about some of the non-Slavic byzantines (Catholic or schismatic) is that they have some odd opinions concerning the sixth and ninth commandments.
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick. You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground. Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking. CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site. We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion. I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either. Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick. You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground. Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking. CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site. We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion. I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either. Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".
Your church denies original sin, denies the papacy, accepts contraception or is in communion with those who do, allow divorce and re-marriage even though Christ condemned it, and denies the filioque.
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick. You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground. Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking. CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site. We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion. I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either. Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".
Your church denies original sin, denies the papacy, accepts contraception or is in communion with those who do, allow divorce and re-marriage even though Christ condemned it, and denies the filioque.
The Roman Catholic Church seems to be thinking and acting on a horizontal, worldly level, while the Orthodox seem to be on the vertical plain. We meet in a small area, but for the most time we're talking past each other. The issues themselves are always open to discussion, since the teaching is based around what's the best "fit" with the Faith passed on. Disagreements abound, but that's ok, and always has been! :)
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick. You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground. Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking. CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site. We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion. I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either. Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".
I guess I'm trying to have a discussion on Faith with people who aren't relativists. Then, I'd like to either confirm that Orthodoxy is the True Faith, or through discussion realize where I'm off. Like I said, Sede-Vacantism is a hard sell for me since it seems kind of sectarian.
To press the "Western Roman Catholic" point hard seems to me to idolize one's religion, without getting to the core of who's done the better job of passing on the Faith. Isn't this the purpose of the Christian Church?
I'll give Bishop Sanborn's sermon a listen...
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick. You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground. Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking. CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site. We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion. I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either. Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".
I guess I'm trying to have a discussion on Faith with people who aren't relativists. Then, I'd like to either confirm that Orthodoxy is the True Faith, or through discussion realize where I'm off. Like I said, Sede-Vacantism is a hard sell for me since it seems kind of sectarian.
To press the "Western Roman Catholic" point hard seems to me to idolize one's religion, without getting to the core of who's done the better job of passing on the Faith. Isn't this the purpose of the Christian Church?
I'll give Bishop Sanborn's sermon a listen...
Then why didn't you look into this BEFORE you converted? I am a convert. I didn't convert to Catholicism and then waltz over to an Orthodox forum and say, "hey, I know I've converted to the Catholic Faith, but let's have a chat about our religions and either confirm I'm right or see where I'm wrong." Once I made the jump to convert, I no longer looked for arguments from other members of other religions. On the other hand, it would make sense to use that as a place for discussion BEFORE I converted.
I'm not buying that you're here for debate. I also wonder whether you're someone else posing as an Orthodox.
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick. You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground. Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking. CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site. We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion. I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either. Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".
Your church denies original sin, denies the papacy, accepts contraception or is in communion with those who do, allow divorce and re-marriage even though Christ condemned it, and denies the filioque.
The Roman Catholic Church seems to be thinking and acting on a horizontal, worldly level, while the Orthodox seem to be on the vertical plain. We meet in a small area, but for the most time we're talking past each other. The issues themselves are always open to discussion, since the teaching is based around what's the best "fit" with the Faith passed on. Disagreements abound, but that's ok, and always has been! :)
in other words, eastern Protestantism.
also, this mystical gobblygook EOers love to spout is a lot of cover.
Some conciliarists and neo-trads used to oohh and aaahh over this stuff, not anymore, I think. Too shallow.
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick. You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground. Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking. CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site. We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion. I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either. Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".
I guess I'm trying to have a discussion on Faith with people who aren't relativists. Then, I'd like to either confirm that Orthodoxy is the True Faith, or through discussion realize where I'm off. Like I said, Sede-Vacantism is a hard sell for me since it seems kind of sectarian.
To press the "Western Roman Catholic" point hard seems to me to idolize one's religion, without getting to the core of who's done the better job of passing on the Faith. Isn't this the purpose of the Christian Church?
I'll give Bishop Sanborn's sermon a listen...
Then why didn't you look into this BEFORE you converted? I am a convert. I didn't convert to Catholicism and then waltz over to an Orthodox forum and say, "hey, I know I've converted to the Catholic Faith, but let's have a chat about our religions and either confirm I'm right or see where I'm wrong." Once I made the jump to convert, I no longer looked for arguments from other members of other religions. On the other hand, it would make sense to use that as a place for discussion BEFORE I converted.
I'm not buying that you're here for debate. I also wonder whether you're someone else posing as an Orthodox.
No, I'm honestly Orthodox. But maybe you're right, maybe it's best for me to just stick to that world.
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick. You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground. Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking. CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site. We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion. I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either. Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".
Your church denies original sin, denies the papacy, accepts contraception or is in communion with those who do, allow divorce and re-marriage even though Christ condemned it, and denies the filioque.
The Roman Catholic Church seems to be thinking and acting on a horizontal, worldly level, while the Orthodox seem to be on the vertical plain. We meet in a small area, but for the most time we're talking past each other. The issues themselves are always open to discussion, since the teaching is based around what's the best "fit" with the Faith passed on. Disagreements abound, but that's ok, and always has been! :)
in other words, eastern Protestantism.
also, this mystical gobblygook EOers love to spout is a lot of cover.
Some conciliarists and neo-trads used to oohh and aaahh over this stuff, not anymore, I think. Too shallow.
No, the Protestants are all yours and have nothing much to do with the Orthodox. They used the Western, scholastic mindset to divide the Faith to a greater and greater extent. The consequence is that not many people in the West are very sure anymore Who it is that they worship or connect with in prayer.
The mystery for you is why this kind of division isn't on the Orthodox side.
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick. You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground. Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking. CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site. We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion. I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either. Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".
I guess I'm trying to have a discussion on Faith with people who aren't relativists. Then, I'd like to either confirm that Orthodoxy is the True Faith, or through discussion realize where I'm off. Like I said, Sede-Vacantism is a hard sell for me since it seems kind of sectarian.
To press the "Western Roman Catholic" point hard seems to me to idolize one's religion, without getting to the core of who's done the better job of passing on the Faith. Isn't this the purpose of the Christian Church?
I'll give Bishop Sanborn's sermon a listen...
Then why didn't you look into this BEFORE you converted? I am a convert. I didn't convert to Catholicism and then waltz over to an Orthodox forum and say, "hey, I know I've converted to the Catholic Faith, but let's have a chat about our religions and either confirm I'm right or see where I'm wrong." Once I made the jump to convert, I no longer looked for arguments from other members of other religions. On the other hand, it would make sense to use that as a place for discussion BEFORE I converted.
I'm not buying that you're here for debate. I also wonder whether you're someone else posing as an Orthodox.
No, I'm honestly Orthodox. But maybe you're right, maybe it's best for me to just stick to that world.
I certainly don't want you to stick to that world, but I would argue that if you are truly, sincerely still open to a different Faith, then you really didn't convert.
-
And yeah, I may be wrong, but I'm still suspicious. Time will tell.
-
I guess where my thoughts are at is, after looking into Orthodoxy, this is the best I've been able to find with regards to historical consistency in ecclesiology and Faith. My goal is to get as close to Christ as I can, and I humbly admit to being a fallible person who could get things wrong (although I've been rigorous as best as I can so far so that I don't have things wrong). Therefore, it's important for me to keep discussing, praying and reading so that where I'm at is less a sclerotic act of will power, but more a natural equilibrium on the Truth.
-
It has been pretty crap at proselytising though hasn't it?
Pretty much the entire rest of the world was proselytised after the schism by the Roman Catholic Church.
I would find it difficult to believe that the Orthodox Church was correct and yet God allowed the false and heretical Roman Church to convert the Americas, Africa and SE Asia. A thousand years is a heck of a long time to let the false religion flourish while the real one hardly grows except in the countries it was already in.
I have spent a lot of time in Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Greece and the orthodox Christians I met usually struck me as very undereducated about their faith. Religion to them was more like a lucky horseshoe or talisman to make them healthy or wealthy. It is rare to meet an Orthodox Christian in those countries who can have a basic conversation about theology or philosophy.
-
It has been pretty crap at proselytising though hasn't it?
LOL...I thought you were talking about the VII church at first.
-
It has been pretty crap at proselytising though hasn't it?
Pretty much the entire rest of the world was proselytised after the schism by the Roman Catholic Church.
I would find it difficult to believe that the Orthodox Church was correct and yet God allowed the false and heretical Roman Church to convert the Americas, Africa and SE Asia. A thousand years is a heck of a long time to let the false religion flourish while the real one hardly grows except in the countries it was already in.
I have spent a lot of time in Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Greece and the orthodox Christians I met usually struck me as very undereducated about their faith. Religion to them was more like a lucky horseshoe or talisman to make them healthy or wealthy. It is rare to meet an Orthodox Christian in those countries who can have a basic conversation about theology or philosophy.
Haha yup, you're right there. The Orthodox haven't done a very good job of proselytising. Mostly because when they haven't been actively persecuted, they've been too poor to do much. Also, the ethnic silos haven't helped.
Yes, this illustrates an aspect of the divide between us. If you think that philosophical or theological discourses are what's most important and shows strength of Faith, we'll talk past each other. 5 minutes of digging online will find plenty of Orthodox people more than able to discuss philosophy or theology.
-
Haha yup, you're right there. The Orthodox haven't done a very good job of proselytising. Mostly because when they haven't been actively persecuted, they've been too poor to do much. Also, the ethnic silos haven't helped.
How is this different than the apostles? Did anything of the sort keep them from proselytizing?
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick. You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground. Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking. CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site. We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion. I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either. Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".
Your church denies original sin, denies the papacy, accepts contraception or is in communion with those who do, allow divorce and re-marriage even though Christ condemned it, and denies the filioque.
The Roman Catholic Church seems to be thinking and acting on a horizontal, worldly level, while the Orthodox seem to be on the vertical plain. We meet in a small area, but for the most time we're talking past each other. The issues themselves are always open to discussion, since the teaching is based around what's the best "fit" with the Faith passed on. Disagreements abound, but that's ok, and always has been! :)
in other words, eastern Protestantism.
also, this mystical gobblygook EOers love to spout is a lot of cover.
Some conciliarists and neo-trads used to oohh and aaahh over this stuff, not anymore, I think. Too shallow.
No, the Protestants are all yours and have nothing much to do with the Orthodox. They used the Western, scholastic mindset to divide the Faith to a greater and greater extent. The consequence is that not many people in the West are very sure anymore Who it is that they worship or connect with in prayer.
The mystery for you is why this kind of division isn't on the Orthodox side.
Actually, the prots are yours. Let me explain. Many schismatics boast of how the east freed itself from the clutches of western scholasticism and latin theology manuals.......and jumped right into the the clutches of Lutheran and even Calvinist theology. In my worship-all-things-eastern phase of life I was into Schmemann. I'll admit, even today I would have little problem recommending his seminal work "For the Life of the World" However, as I got into more off his stuff, and I educated myself more into the True Faith I detected something fishy in his works. I realized I was basically reading the works of an eastern protestant. Schmemann was of the school of post18th century central European protestant-inspired schismatic scholars who were for remolding the Nationalistic churches completely on the protestant model. Their view on the Liturgy, Sacraments, priesthood and the Hierarchal nature of the Church was entirely protestant. (Why do you think anti-pope Bergy wants to remodel the church on the schismatic "synodal" plan?) They were speaking of the Church in much the same as the novus ordians speak of the-people-of-God bunk way. And that was in the 17 or 18 hundreds!!!
Another of Schmemann's seminal work was on the mass. It is still used as a textbook in some seminaries, I believe. It was evident that his view was Protestant to the core. I had to flip back and forth the book for several hours (after reading it once all the way through) to see if there were any mentions of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. I found one throwaway line that confirmed it. Schmemann and his ilk had contempt for any devotions of the "peasants" whether in church or in private. They believe that church should only be opened for one Sunday liturgy a week. And that's it! So much for the Spiritual Life.
Oh, btw, if the prots are our "problem" than Judas was entirely Our Lord's.
-
It has been pretty crap at proselytising though hasn't it?
Pretty much the entire rest of the world was proselytised after the schism by the Roman Catholic Church.
I would find it difficult to believe that the Orthodox Church was correct and yet God allowed the false and heretical Roman Church to convert the Americas, Africa and SE Asia. A thousand years is a heck of a long time to let the false religion flourish while the real one hardly grows except in the countries it was already in.
I have spent a lot of time in Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Greece and the orthodox Christians I met usually struck me as very undereducated about their faith. Religion to them was more like a lucky horseshoe or talisman to make them healthy or wealthy. It is rare to meet an Orthodox Christian in those countries who can have a basic conversation about theology or philosophy.
This post pretty much sums up my thoughts.
-
Hello all!
I thought that it would be interesting to start this thread and see what happens. I'm a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. I converted after a lengthy process of study, prayer, discussions with people on both sides, and at the end of it all attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
From what I've found, the Orthodox have the most historically consistent track record of ecclesiology, doctrine/ teaching of Faith, and practice/ Liturgy (the place where one's Faith is formed). All the changes that resulted in the Great Schism, and further changes afterwards, were solidly on the side of Rome. These changes were built up on the basis of an altered conception of authority, that was not Catholic, in that it was not recognized (by the universal Church... including Christians outside the direct hierarchy of Rome) as part of the Faith passed on from Christ to the Apostles and onwards through time.
Essentially, the Roman Church has been building on sand for the past thousand-plus years. Given the "diversity" in Faith (notably in the Liturgy, but also between various movements within the Church) as well as new versions of the Church every few hundred years or so (keeping up with the times?) it's a house built on sand, currently in the process of collapse.
Since I don't want any future generations of my family to be damaged in Faith when someone tells them that the Novus Ordo (or whatever the new liturgical innovation happens to be) is perfectly fine, "just another tradition", leaving the Roman realm seems necessary.
The Orthodox have their own problems, but these don't seem to seriously impact Faith. Due to their conciliar structure that they've always had... it's easier to correct others for mistakes in Faith than in the hierarchical, authoritative Roman Catholic Church... they've best maintained the Apostolic Faith.
I'm not sure where this post will lead. My intent is less to convert people (that's the job of the Holy Spirit), but more to get all of this out there to a semi-sympathetic audience. Any discussion from here, I hope, will lead people towards Truth.
Hey Nick
in charity I must first tell you that you are on the road to hell as only true catholics will be saved, I went to one of your tribes forums and found they couldn't handle my truthful arguements...they had some differing opinions on basic truths so I would like to know your answer to the following questions
Is St Peter the Rock in Matt 16..?
was St Peter the leader of the apostles?
was St Peter Bishop of Rome?
from your answers I'll know what direction to take the discussion in hopes to save your soul
In peace
-
Hello all!
I thought that it would be interesting to start this thread and see what happens. I'm a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. I converted after a lengthy process of study, prayer, discussions with people on both sides, and at the end of it all attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
From what I've found, the Orthodox have the most historically consistent track record of ecclesiology, doctrine/ teaching of Faith, and practice/ Liturgy (the place where one's Faith is formed). All the changes that resulted in the Great Schism, and further changes afterwards, were solidly on the side of Rome. These changes were built up on the basis of an altered conception of authority, that was not Catholic, in that it was not recognized (by the universal Church... including Christians outside the direct hierarchy of Rome) as part of the Faith passed on from Christ to the Apostles and onwards through time.
Essentially, the Roman Church has been building on sand for the past thousand-plus years. Given the "diversity" in Faith (notably in the Liturgy, but also between various movements within the Church) as well as new versions of the Church every few hundred years or so (keeping up with the times?) it's a house built on sand, currently in the process of collapse.
Since I don't want any future generations of my family to be damaged in Faith when someone tells them that the Novus Ordo (or whatever the new liturgical innovation happens to be) is perfectly fine, "just another tradition", leaving the Roman realm seems necessary.
The Orthodox have their own problems, but these don't seem to seriously impact Faith. Due to their conciliar structure that they've always had... it's easier to correct others for mistakes in Faith than in the hierarchical, authoritative Roman Catholic Church... they've best maintained the Apostolic Faith.
I'm not sure where this post will lead. My intent is less to convert people (that's the job of the Holy Spirit), but more to get all of this out there to a semi-sympathetic audience. Any discussion from here, I hope, will lead people towards Truth.
Hey Nick
in charity I must first tell you that you are on the road to hell as only true catholics will be saved, I went to one of your tribes forums and found they couldn't handle my truthful arguements...they had some differing opinions on basic truths so I would like to know your answer to the following questions
Is St Peter the Rock in Matt 16..?
was St Peter the leader of the apostles?
was St Peter Bishop of Rome?
from your answers I'll know what direction to take the discussion in hopes to save your soul
In peace
To tell a person that they are on the road to hell seems to set yourself, or whoever said such a thing, as equal to God Himself. I would not go there, if I were you.
Yes
Yes
Yes. He was also the first bishop of Jerusalem and of Antioch. He also never claimed anything resembling infallible and complete universal authority over any of the other apostles. This has already been hashed out extensively, and all the changes in ecclesiology and understanding of Faith truly were on the Roman side.
-
Haha yup, you're right there. The Orthodox haven't done a very good job of proselytising. Mostly because when they haven't been actively persecuted, they've been too poor to do much. Also, the ethnic silos haven't helped.
How is this different than the apostles? Did anything of the sort keep them from proselytizing?
Actually, martyrdom did just that. The Christian Church was generally small and oppressed for its first 500 years.
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick. You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground. Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking. CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site. We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion. I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either. Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".
Your church denies original sin, denies the papacy, accepts contraception or is in communion with those who do, allow divorce and re-marriage even though Christ condemned it, and denies the filioque.
The Roman Catholic Church seems to be thinking and acting on a horizontal, worldly level, while the Orthodox seem to be on the vertical plain. We meet in a small area, but for the most time we're talking past each other. The issues themselves are always open to discussion, since the teaching is based around what's the best "fit" with the Faith passed on. Disagreements abound, but that's ok, and always has been! :)
in other words, eastern Protestantism.
also, this mystical gobblygook EOers love to spout is a lot of cover.
Some conciliarists and neo-trads used to oohh and aaahh over this stuff, not anymore, I think. Too shallow.
No, the Protestants are all yours and have nothing much to do with the Orthodox. They used the Western, scholastic mindset to divide the Faith to a greater and greater extent. The consequence is that not many people in the West are very sure anymore Who it is that they worship or connect with in prayer.
The mystery for you is why this kind of division isn't on the Orthodox side.
Actually, the prots are yours. Let me explain. Many schismatics boast of how the east freed itself from the clutches of western scholasticism and latin theology manuals.......and jumped right into the the clutches of Lutheran and even Calvinist theology. In my worship-all-things-eastern phase of life I was into Schmemann. I'll admit, even today I would have little problem recommending his seminal work "For the Life of the World" However, as I got into more off his stuff, and I educated myself more into the True Faith I detected something fishy in his works. I realized I was basically reading the works of an eastern protestant. Schmemann was of the school of post18th century central European protestant-inspired schismatic scholars who were for remolding the Nationalistic churches completely on the protestant model. Their view on the Liturgy, Sacraments, priesthood and the Hierarchal nature of the Church was entirely protestant. (Why do you think anti-pope Bergy wants to remodel the church on the schismatic "synodal" plan?) They were speaking of the Church in much the same as the novus ordians speak of the-people-of-God bunk way. And that was in the 17 or 18 hundreds!!!
Another of Schmemann's seminal work was on the mass. It is still used as a textbook in some seminaries, I believe. It was evident that his view was Protestant to the core. I had to flip back and forth the book for several hours (after reading it once all the way through) to see if there were any mentions of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. I found one throwaway line that confirmed it. Schmemann and his ilk had contempt for any devotions of the "peasants" whether in church or in private. They believe that church should only be opened for one Sunday liturgy a week. And that's it! So much for the Spiritual Life.
Oh, btw, if the prots are our "problem" than Judas was entirely Our Lord's.
Schmemann's work is liked by some, disliked by others... no one's out to canonize him at the moment. No one speaks for all of Orthodoxy: if an idea is consistent with the existing Faith or shows the Faith better, it might be picked up. That's how things have always been done.
Synodal structure, by way of councils, has been the way the Orthodox have always operated, since the Apostles.
Yes, the Protestants are all the Western problem. There's no such Eastern equivalent. Schismatic groups such as the Old Believers (recently reconciled) and other churches not in communion with anyone else are the Eastern problem. They go into schism with valid bishops and priests, differences are brought forward, people get angry at each other and call each other anti-Christs, etc. and a few hundred years later once people have died and sober and saintly people take a good look at things, groups reconcile. Unlike in the West, changes do not involve serious attacks on Faith or the Sacraments.
No, Judas was his own problem. He hardened his heart to God and instead of receiving forgiveness, he killed himself in a last act of pride and despair. The Protestant revolt, although tragic, should be seen in the context of a disastrously bloated and corrupt Roman Catholic Church at the time.
-
Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.
No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.
I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.
I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick. You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground. Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking. CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site. We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion. I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either. Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".
Your church denies original sin, denies the papacy, accepts contraception or is in communion with those who do, allow divorce and re-marriage even though Christ condemned it, and denies the filioque.
The Roman Catholic Church seems to be thinking and acting on a horizontal, worldly level, while the Orthodox seem to be on the vertical plain. We meet in a small area, but for the most time we're talking past each other. The issues themselves are always open to discussion, since the teaching is based around what's the best "fit" with the Faith passed on. Disagreements abound, but that's ok, and always has been! :)
in other words, eastern Protestantism.
also, this mystical gobblygook EOers love to spout is a lot of cover.
Some conciliarists and neo-trads used to oohh and aaahh over this stuff, not anymore, I think. Too shallow.
No, the Protestants are all yours and have nothing much to do with the Orthodox. They used the Western, scholastic mindset to divide the Faith to a greater and greater extent. The consequence is that not many people in the West are very sure anymore Who it is that they worship or connect with in prayer.
The mystery for you is why this kind of division isn't on the Orthodox side.
Actually, the prots are yours. Let me explain. Many schismatics boast of how the east freed itself from the clutches of western scholasticism and latin theology manuals.......and jumped right into the the clutches of Lutheran and even Calvinist theology. In my worship-all-things-eastern phase of life I was into Schmemann. I'll admit, even today I would have little problem recommending his seminal work "For the Life of the World" However, as I got into more off his stuff, and I educated myself more into the True Faith I detected something fishy in his works. I realized I was basically reading the works of an eastern protestant. Schmemann was of the school of post18th century central European protestant-inspired schismatic scholars who were for remolding the Nationalistic churches completely on the protestant model. Their view on the Liturgy, Sacraments, priesthood and the Hierarchal nature of the Church was entirely protestant. (Why do you think anti-pope Bergy wants to remodel the church on the schismatic "synodal" plan?) They were speaking of the Church in much the same as the novus ordians speak of the-people-of-God bunk way. And that was in the 17 or 18 hundreds!!!
Another of Schmemann's seminal work was on the mass. It is still used as a textbook in some seminaries, I believe. It was evident that his view was Protestant to the core. I had to flip back and forth the book for several hours (after reading it once all the way through) to see if there were any mentions of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. I found one throwaway line that confirmed it. Schmemann and his ilk had contempt for any devotions of the "peasants" whether in church or in private. They believe that church should only be opened for one Sunday liturgy a week. And that's it! So much for the Spiritual Life.
Oh, btw, if the prots are our "problem" than Judas was entirely Our Lord's.
Schmemann's work is liked by some, disliked by others... no one's out to canonize him at the moment. No one speaks for all of Orthodoxy: if an idea is consistent with the existing Faith or shows the Faith better, it might be picked up. That's how things have always been done.
Synodal structure, by way of councils, has been the way the Orthodox have always operated, since the Apostles.
Yes, the Protestants are all the Western problem. There's no such Eastern equivalent. Schismatic groups such as the Old Believers (recently reconciled) and other churches not in communion with anyone else are the Eastern problem. They go into schism with valid bishops and priests, differences are brought forward, people get angry at each other and call each other anti-Christs, etc. and a few hundred years later once people have died and sober and saintly people take a good look at things, groups reconcile. Unlike in the West, changes do not involve serious attacks on Faith or the Sacraments.
No, Judas was his own problem. He hardened his heart to God and instead of receiving forgiveness, he killed himself in a last act of pride and despair. The Protestant revolt, although tragic, should be seen in the context of a disastrously bloated and corrupt Roman Catholic Church at the time.
and the protestants are there own problem
and the schismatics hardened their hearts to God's church
and their theology is more in line with the prots
and orthodoxy [patent pending] only goes back to about the 13th century
and it is ripe with crypto-protism as some of their hierarchs will admit
and Schmemann was part of a much larger and dominant school of theology
and you are on the road to hell
-
and the protestants are there own problem
and the schismatics hardened their hearts to God's church
and their theology is more in line with the prots
and orthodoxy [patent pending] only goes back to about the 13th century
and it is ripe with crypto-protism as some of their hierarchs will admit
and Schmemann was part of a much larger and dominant school of theology
and you are on the road to hell
Your heart, soul and mind are very hard... you have my prayers.
-
Hello all!
.
Hey Nick
in charity I must first tell you that you are on the road to hell as only true catholics will be saved, I went to one of your tribes forums and found they couldn't handle my truthful arguements...they had some differing opinions on basic truths so I would like to know your answer to the following questions
Is St Peter the Rock in Matt 16..?
was St Peter the leader of the apostles?
was St Peter Bishop of Rome?
from your answers I'll know what direction to take the discussion in hopes to save your soul
In peace
To tell a person that they are on the road to hell seems to set yourself, or whoever said such a thing, as equal to God Himself. I would not go there, if I were you.
Yes
Yes
Yes. He was also the first bishop of Jerusalem and of Antioch. He also never claimed anything resembling infallible and complete universal authority over any of the other apostles. This has already been hashed out extensively, and all the changes in ecclesiology and understanding of Faith truly were on the Roman side.
If God's church has declared you are on the road to hell I will ofcourse go there
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.
you answered the questions better than most orthodox I argue with,..but you say he never claimed authority over the other apostles so I ask you who did our Lord tell to rule His sheep, I'll give you a hint..read John 21
as for infallible
the word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.” Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith.
now l'd like your comment on the following quote
t. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, A.D. 203: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 1: 210.)
-
Nick,
I do not believe that Eastern Orthodoxy can be the true faith of Jesus Christ. To take just one example, look at contraception, artificial or otherwise. Some Orthodox are okay with it; others consider it to be a mortal sin. In traditional Roman Catholicism, Pope Pius XI definitively, and until the End of Time, settled the issue. Contraception (that is, the willful and deliberate intent to disrupt the procreation of new life) is gravely sinful. Period. End of story. The fact that the supposed occupant of the Chair of Peter notwithstanding, this fundamental revelation from the One and Triune God can never, ever change.
The Orthodox have not had an ecuмenical Council in over 1,000 years. Doesn't that bother you? Some Orthodox claim that they can have a valid ecuмenical Council without the participation of the West; others disagree. So, even there, there is disagreement about a fundamental issue of the universal Church, that is, its ability to hold an ecuмenical Council. Sede Catholics at least have Councils since the 7th all the way up to the First Vatican Council, and yet, you'd have us believe that all of the Church Councils of the Second Millennium are all invalid and that the universal Church is incapable of ever having another one.
-
Hello all!
.
Hey Nick
in charity I must first tell you that you are on the road to hell as only true catholics will be saved, I went to one of your tribes forums and found they couldn't handle my truthful arguements...they had some differing opinions on basic truths so I would like to know your answer to the following questions
Is St Peter the Rock in Matt 16..?
was St Peter the leader of the apostles?
was St Peter Bishop of Rome?
from your answers I'll know what direction to take the discussion in hopes to save your soul
In peace
To tell a person that they are on the road to hell seems to set yourself, or whoever said such a thing, as equal to God Himself. I would not go there, if I were you.
Yes
Yes
Yes. He was also the first bishop of Jerusalem and of Antioch. He also never claimed anything resembling infallible and complete universal authority over any of the other apostles. This has already been hashed out extensively, and all the changes in ecclesiology and understanding of Faith truly were on the Roman side.
If God's church has declared you are on the road to hell I will ofcourse go there
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.
you answered the questions better than most orthodox I argue with,..but you say he never claimed authority over the other apostles so I ask you who did our Lord tell to rule His sheep, I'll give you a hint..read John 21
as for infallible
the word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.” Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith.
now l'd like your comment on the following quote
t. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, A.D. 203: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 1: 210.)
We haven't established that you're in the True Church (historical evidence and logic points to being the schismatic church), so Vatican 1 really carries no weight for me.
Yes, I've already hashed out infallibility, and it never seemed to apply in the same way it does now to Roman bishops. Pope Honorious I was anathematized by both west and east as a heretic, for example, until this got in the way of increasing Roman claims to authority, and they stopped anathematizing him. Popes are quite fallible, and "ex-cathedra" is a flexible, debatable category that means nothing and amounts to little more than political butt covering.
Proof texts are actually pretty weak, although Protestants and those of a like mindset love them. Read them in the context of history and solid (not changing, or "developing") Tradition, and it'll mean something else to you. I won't bother posting Orthodox links that discuss this further, since there's many websites that hash it out in detail that you can look up in google in 10 seconds. I've read all of them, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, already.
-
Nick,
I do not believe that Eastern Orthodoxy can be the true faith of Jesus Christ. To take just one example, look at contraception, artificial or otherwise. Some Orthodox are okay with it; others consider it to be a mortal sin. In traditional Roman Catholicism, Pope Pius XI definitively, and until the End of Time, settled the issue. Contraception (that is, the willful and deliberate intent to disrupt the procreation of new life) is gravely sinful. Period. End of story. The fact that the supposed occupant of the Chair of Peter notwithstanding, this fundamental revelation from the One and Triune God can never, ever change.
The Orthodox have not had an ecuмenical Council in over 1,000 years. Doesn't that bother you? Some Orthodox claim that they can have a valid ecuмenical Council without the participation of the West; others disagree. So, even there, there is disagreement about a fundamental issue of the universal Church, that is, its ability to hold an ecuмenical Council. Sede Catholics at least have Councils since the 7th all the way up to the First Vatican Council, and yet, you'd have us believe that all of the Church Councils of the Second Millennium are all invalid and that the universal Church is incapable of ever having another one.
Are you ok with NFP? If so, what happens is exactly the same as barrier methods of contraception. Egg and sperm don't meet, and sex is (hopefully ;) enjoyed by both husband and wife. Anything that kills or endangers the health of the child or the mother is out. Many Orthodox I know also seem to like having big families.
Not everything is a giant battle between Good and Evil, especially since Evil has already been completely vanquished with Christ's death on the cross and resurrection! :) Contraception is no different. The Orthodox think in terms of what's more generous to God, and enjoy creating new life! We'd think that there'd be something strange and wrong with a person if they could have another child, but choose not to for selfish reasons.
-
Nick,
I do not believe that Eastern Orthodoxy can be the true faith of Jesus Christ. To take just one example, look at contraception, artificial or otherwise. Some Orthodox are okay with it; others consider it to be a mortal sin. In traditional Roman Catholicism, Pope Pius XI definitively, and until the End of Time, settled the issue. Contraception (that is, the willful and deliberate intent to disrupt the procreation of new life) is gravely sinful. Period. End of story. The fact that the supposed occupant of the Chair of Peter notwithstanding, this fundamental revelation from the One and Triune God can never, ever change.
The Orthodox have not had an ecuмenical Council in over 1,000 years. Doesn't that bother you? Some Orthodox claim that they can have a valid ecuмenical Council without the participation of the West; others disagree. So, even there, there is disagreement about a fundamental issue of the universal Church, that is, its ability to hold an ecuмenical Council. Sede Catholics at least have Councils since the 7th all the way up to the First Vatican Council, and yet, you'd have us believe that all of the Church Councils of the Second Millennium are all invalid and that the universal Church is incapable of ever having another one.
Oh yes, and the ecuмenical councils issue. The labels (is it ecuмenical or not!!?!) don't really matter for us. What's important is that issues of Faith are worked out in a conciliar way... that is, bishops and priests sit down with each other, address the issue(s) at hand, and try to come up with a solution that's best in accordance with the Faith we've received. Sometimes it works, sometimes more councils are called and the process continues. It's always been like that, from the time of the Apostles onwards.
-
Oh yes, and the ecuмenical councils issue. The labels (is it ecuмenical or not!!?!) don't really matter for us. What's important is that issues of Faith are worked out in a conciliar way... that is, bishops and priests sit down with each other, address the issue(s) at hand, and try to come up with a solution that's best in accordance with the Faith we've received. Sometimes it works, sometimes more councils are called and the process continues. It's always been like that, from the time of the Apostles onwards.
Per your religion, though, this has not happened in over a thousand years. Once again, contraception cannot be a "mortal sin" for one person and "acceptable" for someone else. It's either part of the natural law or its not. We traditional Catholics assert that contraception is a grave sin against the natural law and is intrinsically evil. If contraception is, indeed, intrinsically evil, then it must be intrinsically evil for everyone and not just some individuals.
-
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.
-
It has been pretty crap at proselytising though hasn't it?
Pretty much the entire rest of the world was proselytised after the schism by the Roman Catholic Church.
I would find it difficult to believe that the Orthodox Church was correct and yet God allowed the false and heretical Roman Church to convert the Americas, Africa and SE Asia. A thousand years is a heck of a long time to let the false religion flourish while the real one hardly grows except in the countries it was already in.
I have spent a lot of time in Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Greece and the orthodox Christians I met usually struck me as very undereducated about their faith. Religion to them was more like a lucky horseshoe or talisman to make them healthy or wealthy. It is rare to meet an Orthodox Christian in those countries who can have a basic conversation about theology or philosophy.
Haha yup, you're right there. The Orthodox haven't done a very good job of proselytising. Mostly because when they haven't been actively persecuted, they've been too poor to do much. Also, the ethnic silos haven't helped.
Yes, this illustrates an aspect of the divide between us. If you think that philosophical or theological discourses are what's most important and shows strength of Faith, we'll talk past each other. 5 minutes of digging online will find plenty of Orthodox people more than able to discuss philosophy or theology.
Sure, but I am talking about the bulk of churchgoers. I know, very probably, more Orthodox Christians in Orthodox Christian lands than you do. Very typically, when I have spoken to them, they don't know their arse from their elbow when it comes to the faith. The diaspora of orthodox believers in non-orthodox countries and converts are unusual in that they actually know something about the faith. Ask a typical Russian or Georgian or Greek and they are completely clueless. They kiss icons like lucky charms and go through the motions but they would not be able to answer even 1/3 of the questions in the equivalent of the penny cathecism, if indeed such a think existed.
Since Christ told the apostles to proselytise, why would He leave the Orthodox without the political, military or economic means to do so for 1000 years if they were his true church and let the heretical or schismatic Roman Catholics steal the show?
-
It has been pretty crap at proselytising though hasn't it?
Pretty much the entire rest of the world was proselytised after the schism by the Roman Catholic Church.
I would find it difficult to believe that the Orthodox Church was correct and yet God allowed the false and heretical Roman Church to convert the Americas, Africa and SE Asia. A thousand years is a heck of a long time to let the false religion flourish while the real one hardly grows except in the countries it was already in.
I have spent a lot of time in Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Greece and the orthodox Christians I met usually struck me as very undereducated about their faith. Religion to them was more like a lucky horseshoe or talisman to make them healthy or wealthy. It is rare to meet an Orthodox Christian in those countries who can have a basic conversation about theology or philosophy.
Haha yup, you're right there. The Orthodox haven't done a very good job of proselytising. Mostly because when they haven't been actively persecuted, they've been too poor to do much. Also, the ethnic silos haven't helped.
Yes, this illustrates an aspect of the divide between us. If you think that philosophical or theological discourses are what's most important and shows strength of Faith, we'll talk past each other. 5 minutes of digging online will find plenty of Orthodox people more than able to discuss philosophy or theology.
Sure, but I am talking about the bulk of churchgoers. I know, very probably, more Orthodox Christians in Orthodox Christian lands than you do. Very typically, when I have spoken to them, they don't know their arse from their elbow when it comes to the faith. The diaspora of orthodox believers in non-orthodox countries and converts are unusual in that they actually know something about the faith. Ask a typical Russian or Georgian or Greek and they are completely clueless. They kiss icons like lucky charms and go through the motions but they would not be able to answer even 1/3 of the questions in the equivalent of the penny cathecism, if indeed such a think existed.
Since Christ told the apostles to proselytise, why would He leave the Orthodox without the political, military or economic means to do so for 1000 years if they were his true church and let the heretical or schismatic Roman Catholics steal the show?
Faith for us is experiential, not intellectual, lived, and not necessarily thought about. They kissing icons of Christ, the Theotokos, and the Saints, and through these simple signs of affection God is rightly glorified. :)
Christ left the Orthodox with hundreds upon thousands of martyrs in the past century alone. What else do we need to be a more powerful witness to Him?
-
Numbers Nick. You either gotta convert them or breed them. But numbers matter, at some level at least. If God wants souls, then he clearly has to expose many souls to the "good news"
If Christianity was some obscure little 2000 year old religious sect limited to Palestine, Syria and Jordan nobody here would take it seriously. It could have all the faith and goodness it wanted but the vast majority would be cut off from it,
At some level we are impressed by the success of a religion in terms of growing itself and spreading its message and affecting many lives as a result. It seems reasonable that God would help the true religion to spread itself in order to help as many souls as possible.
Roman Catholicism built the modern world. Orthodoxy did not.
-
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!
"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:23, RSV)
It is the Holy Spirit which guided the true Successors of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, which meant guiding them as to what is (and is not) sinful. It is only in these Last Days that, like Pope Honorius I, has the claimants to the See of Peter fallen into apostasy and heresy. Is such scandalous? Yes, absolutely; however, the universal Ordinary Magisterium is absolutely immutable, coming as it did from the immutable One and Triune God through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ, a Perfect Being.
You have no one to guide you, Nick, except your Orthodox bishop who cannot agree with his fellow bishops on what is fundamentally true. And, then, there are the Coptic Christians. They hold both Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox to be in error. So, why should we believe you other them?
These divisions are not, in my opinion, what the Holy Spirit willed (or wills) for the One True Church, and there is absolutely nothing that you could ever say to me that would convince me that Eastern Orthodoxy is the religion which Christ willed. I can provide you with a plethora of quotes from Saint Augustine and those Fathers before him which asserted the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and you will not be able to provide a single quote from anyone who took Saint Augustine to task for his claims. At a very minimum, asserting the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (or, at least the chair) is neither heretical nor false, and the alternative, well, there is none, at least as far as I am concerned. What you (and, the Coptics, too) propose is a Church without a head, a view no different from Protestantism with its plethora of "private interpretations." Even sedes assert the immutability and primacy of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which no Pope is free to change, but obviously, free to deny, as scandalous as that may be.
-
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!
"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:23, RSV)
It is the Holy Spirit which guided the true Successors of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, which meant guiding them as to what is (and is not) sinful. It is only in these Last Days that, like Pope Honorius I, has the claimants to the See of Peter fallen into apostasy and heresy. Is such scandalous? Yes, absolutely; however, the universal Ordinary Magisterium is absolutely immutable, coming as it did from the immutable One and Triune God through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ, a Perfect Being.
You have no one to guide you, Nick, except your Orthodox bishop who cannot agree with his fellow bishops on what is fundamentally true. And, then, there are the Coptic Christians. They hold both Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox to be in error. So, why should we believe you other them?
These divisions are not, in my opinion, what the Holy Spirit willed (or wills) for the One True Church, and there is absolutely nothing that you could ever say to me that would convince me that Eastern Orthodoxy is the religion which Christ willed. I can provide you with a plethora of quotes from Saint Augustine and those Fathers before him which asserted the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and you will not be able to provide a single quote from anyone who took Saint Augustine to task for his claims. At a very minimum, asserting the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (or, at least the chair) is neither heretical nor false, and the alternative, well, there is none, at least as far as I am concerned. What you (and, the Coptics, too) propose is a Church without a head, a view no different from Protestantism with its plethora of "private interpretations." Even sedes assert the immutability and primacy of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which no Pope is free to change, but obviously, free to deny, as scandalous as that may be.
Ok, thank you for mentioning the Magisterium. From what I understand, this is the Pope teaching in accordance with previous Popes and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, you have this.
In Orthodoxy, each Bishop (as well as the priests and the Faithful) has read each others' stuff, and has read, ideally extensively, and been taught by the Church Fathers, previous and current Patriarchs, monks, saintly elders, priests, theologians, etc etc. ALL of the Bishops are normally in a state of wilful communion with each other, since they all recognize each other to be of the same Faith. When issues come up, a council at some scale is called, and things get resolved. It's not a perfect system, but it's worked well for keeping the Faith the same across the board and for working out problems in time. The interpretations and teachings are very public, not private, and widely agreed on.
Well, you can send as many proof texts as you like. Again, this is a Protestant-style mindset, and neither proves or denies their validity since it's disconnected from Holy Tradition.
-
Numbers Nick. You either gotta convert them or breed them. But numbers matter, at some level at least. If God wants souls, then he clearly has to expose many souls to the "good news"
If Christianity was some obscure little 2000 year old religious sect limited to Palestine, Syria and Jordan nobody here would take it seriously. It could have all the faith and goodness it wanted but the vast majority would be cut off from it,
At some level we are impressed by the success of a religion in terms of growing itself and spreading its message and affecting many lives as a result. It seems reasonable that God would help the true religion to spread itself in order to help as many souls as possible.
Roman Catholicism built the modern world. Orthodoxy did not.
It seems also that the religion that's closest to the Truth would be the one with the most monks and martyrs, if you really insist on counting numbers. God sustaining such people in Faith is a greater miracle by far than any amount of military or economic power.
-
been taught by the Church Fathers..
Saint Augustine, a Church father, taught us the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff:
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/09/augustine-on-papacy.html
-
been taught by the Church Fathers..
Saint Augustine, a Church father, taught us the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff:
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/09/augustine-on-papacy.html
Again, you and most other Roman Catholics make the logical leap from Peter and how he was broadly understood at the time to work in the early Church, to infallible, universal jurisdiction of specifically the Bishop of Rome, one of the (but not the only!) successors of the Apostle Peter. This text does not establish how Peter was regarded in the early Church, how Rome and the other Sees were united, and who's best followed such precedents.
-
Hello all!
.
.
I
now l'd like your comment on the following quote
t. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, A.D. 203: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 1: 210.)
We haven't established that you're in the True Church (historical evidence and logic points to being the schismatic church), so Vatican 1 really carries no weight for me.
Yes, I've already hashed out infallibility, and it never seemed to apply in the same way it does now to Roman bishops. Pope Honorious I was anathematized by both west and east as a heretic, for example, until this got in the way of increasing Roman claims to authority, and they stopped anathematizing him. Popes are quite fallible, and "ex-cathedra" is a flexible, debatable category that means nothing and amounts to little more than political butt covering.
Proof texts are actually pretty weak, although Protestants and those of a like mindset love them. Read them in the context of history and solid (not changing, or "developing") Tradition, and it'll mean something else to you. I won't bother posting Orthodox links that discuss this further, since there's many websites that hash it out in detail that you can look up in google in 10 seconds. I've read all of them, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, already.
what are you talking about when you say proof texts are weak? I'm giving you a quote..you can't comment on it because it goes against your beliefs..is that it?
the following is an exchange between trad catholics, the Dimond brothers ( who some here think are extreme) and an eastern orthodox..can you answer his question I bolded below?
Jesus Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter (Mt. 16), and gave him jurisdiction over his flock (John 21:15-17). St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and his followers (i.e., the members of the Church in Rome) elected his successor, or he appointed his own successor as the Bishop of Rome and head of the universal Church. This process continued through the ages, with the pope being able to change the process of election (such as by instituting a college of cardinals) if he so decided, since the pope has supreme authority in the Church from Christ (Mt. 16). All individuals not elected in this fashion (e.g., one who was elected after the Bishop of Rome had already been chosen in the tradition thus described, or one who was appointed by an outside source, such as an emperor, after the pope had already been chosen, or one who was elected as a non-member of the community, such as a manifest heretic) wouldn’t be true popes, but (logically) antipopes. This logical framework holds true for all of history, and has allowed one to see which are the true popes and which are not – even if at some of the most difficult periods of Church history, such as the Great Western Schism, ascertaining the facts to correctly apply these principles was difficult enough that some mistakes were made by certain individuals.
I have thus described the consistent, logical framework of the succession of the authority given to St. Peter by Jesus Christ to the popes down through the ages. This shows that the Catholic Faith is consistent. (The authority given to St. Peter and his successors is the backing of the dogmatic councils; this is the authority which anathematizes those who deny the dogmatic councils’ teaching.)
On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical. As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II! But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops. Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical! Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787? Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept? What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it? How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were? What are the criteria? I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none. Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.
Jay, Eastern Orthodoxy cannot logically hold any council to be dogmatic and binding, as you will see if you honestly and deeply think about it. In E. Orthodoxy there is nothing which backs the anathemas of Ephesus or another council other than the word of bishops, who are equal to other bishops who many times taught the opposite. If the “Church” spoke at Constantinople I because 150 bishops came to it and pronounced authoritatively on faith, then the “Church” spoke at many other false councils in the early Church which had similar numbers of bishops! It is inescapable, therefore, that according to the Eastern “Orthodox” position the Church of Christ has defected (i.e., officially fallen into error) many times at the various false councils. This contradicts the promises of Christ that the gates of Hell cannot prevail and that God would be with His Church always (Mt. 16). Eastern “Orthodoxy” is an illogical farce, which rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and the fathers on the Papal Primacy, and which causes those who accept it to truly wind up believing in no dogma at all. That’s why Pope Leo XIII says those who reject one dogma reject all Faith. I guess the fact that E. Orthodoxy does not – and cannot – really believe in any dogmatic councils (as shown above) is why it’s so appealing to so many: it’s provides the comfort of Protestantism, yet the appearance of ancient tradition, at the same time the feel of liturgical piety, with the illusion of hierarchical authority.
By the way, I think we agree that the post-Vatican II sect is a huge manifestation of evil at the very least, a Counter Church of the Devil. Well, the post-Vatican II sect loves Eastern Orthodoxy. That should tell you something. If E. Orthodoxy were true, the post-Vatican II antipopes would hate it. The post-Vatican II antipopes, whose mission from the Devil is to embrace all the major breaches of God’s truth in history (the pagan religions, the Islamic religion, the heretical sects and the E. Orthodox schism) reaches out to and wants to unite with E. Orthodoxy (and Protestantism) because the Devil knows that E. Orthodoxy was one of those major movements of rejection of God’s truth by which he has ensnared millions of souls
-
Hello all!
.
.
I
now l'd like your comment on the following quote
t. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, A.D. 203: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 1: 210.)
We haven't established that you're in the True Church (historical evidence and logic points to being the schismatic church), so Vatican 1 really carries no weight for me.
Yes, I've already hashed out infallibility, and it never seemed to apply in the same way it does now to Roman bishops. Pope Honorious I was anathematized by both west and east as a heretic, for example, until this got in the way of increasing Roman claims to authority, and they stopped anathematizing him. Popes are quite fallible, and "ex-cathedra" is a flexible, debatable category that means nothing and amounts to little more than political butt covering.
Proof texts are actually pretty weak, although Protestants and those of a like mindset love them. Read them in the context of history and solid (not changing, or "developing") Tradition, and it'll mean something else to you. I won't bother posting Orthodox links that discuss this further, since there's many websites that hash it out in detail that you can look up in google in 10 seconds. I've read all of them, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, already.
what are you talking about when you say proof texts are weak? I'm giving you a quote..you can't comment on it because it goes against your beliefs..is that it?
the following is an exchange between trad catholics, the Dimond brothers ( who some here think are extreme) and an eastern orthodox..can you answer his question I bolded below?
Jesus Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter (Mt. 16), and gave him jurisdiction over his flock (John 21:15-17). St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and his followers (i.e., the members of the Church in Rome) elected his successor, or he appointed his own successor as the Bishop of Rome and head of the universal Church. This process continued through the ages, with the pope being able to change the process of election (such as by instituting a college of cardinals) if he so decided, since the pope has supreme authority in the Church from Christ (Mt. 16). All individuals not elected in this fashion (e.g., one who was elected after the Bishop of Rome had already been chosen in the tradition thus described, or one who was appointed by an outside source, such as an emperor, after the pope had already been chosen, or one who was elected as a non-member of the community, such as a manifest heretic) wouldn’t be true popes, but (logically) antipopes. This logical framework holds true for all of history, and has allowed one to see which are the true popes and which are not – even if at some of the most difficult periods of Church history, such as the Great Western Schism, ascertaining the facts to correctly apply these principles was difficult enough that some mistakes were made by certain individuals.
I have thus described the consistent, logical framework of the succession of the authority given to St. Peter by Jesus Christ to the popes down through the ages. This shows that the Catholic Faith is consistent. (The authority given to St. Peter and his successors is the backing of the dogmatic councils; this is the authority which anathematizes those who deny the dogmatic councils’ teaching.)
On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical. As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II! But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops. Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical! Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787? Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept? What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it? How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were? What are the criteria? I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none. Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.
Jay, Eastern Orthodoxy cannot logically hold any council to be dogmatic and binding, as you will see if you honestly and deeply think about it. In E. Orthodoxy there is nothing which backs the anathemas of Ephesus or another council other than the word of bishops, who are equal to other bishops who many times taught the opposite. If the “Church” spoke at Constantinople I because 150 bishops came to it and pronounced authoritatively on faith, then the “Church” spoke at many other false councils in the early Church which had similar numbers of bishops! It is inescapable, therefore, that according to the Eastern “Orthodox” position the Church of Christ has defected (i.e., officially fallen into error) many times at the various false councils. This contradicts the promises of Christ that the gates of Hell cannot prevail and that God would be with His Church always (Mt. 16). Eastern “Orthodoxy” is an illogical farce, which rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and the fathers on the Papal Primacy, and which causes those who accept it to truly wind up believing in no dogma at all. That’s why Pope Leo XIII says those who reject one dogma reject all Faith. I guess the fact that E. Orthodoxy does not – and cannot – really believe in any dogmatic councils (as shown above) is why it’s so appealing to so many: it’s provides the comfort of Protestantism, yet the appearance of ancient tradition, at the same time the feel of liturgical piety, with the illusion of hierarchical authority.
By the way, I think we agree that the post-Vatican II sect is a huge manifestation of evil at the very least, a Counter Church of the Devil. Well, the post-Vatican II sect loves Eastern Orthodoxy. That should tell you something. If E. Orthodoxy were true, the post-Vatican II antipopes would hate it. The post-Vatican II antipopes, whose mission from the Devil is to embrace all the major breaches of God’s truth in history (the pagan religions, the Islamic religion, the heretical sects and the E. Orthodox schism) reaches out to and wants to unite with E. Orthodoxy (and Protestantism) because the Devil knows that E. Orthodoxy was one of those major movements of rejection of God’s truth by which he has ensnared millions of souls
Well, what can I say? Your understanding of Peter's authority (the Keys: what this entails, and who they're passed on to), ecclesiology (even the "office" of bishop didn't exist until nearly a hundred years after Peter), and Faith (unity with the office of the Bishop of Rome) is absolutely nothing like what was understood in the early Church.
Furthermore, the Western tradition hasn't maintained what was actually substantive about St. Peter's role in the church: being the leader and "spokesman" for a conciliar Church. We know he acted in a manner according to the way the Orthodox have always operated (conciliar synods and councils), but we have no evidence that he claimed or exercised supreme, universal authority over all the other apostles, much less passed on such an authority in perpetuity in any way shape or form uniquely to the bishops of Rome. It's just not there!
You are similar to Protestants in that you cling to a worldly authority: the Protestants have the Bible, you have the office of the Papacy. We have no such worldly authority, just guiding Tradition, a historically continuous community of Faithful, and the Holy Spirit. We know what actions, teachings, ways of worship, etc are correct, because we know personally Christ whom we follow.
The emphasis, although you probably don't consider it substantive enough, is and always has been on passing on the Faith.
-
been taught by the Church Fathers..
Saint Augustine, a Church father, taught us the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff:
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/09/augustine-on-papacy.html
Again, you and most other Roman Catholics make the logical leap from Peter and how he was broadly understood at the time to work in the early Church, to infallible, universal jurisdiction of specifically the Bishop of Rome, one of the (but not the only!) successors of the Apostle Peter. This text does not establish how Peter was regarded in the early Church, how Rome and the other Sees were united, and who's best followed such precedents.
Consider the Miracle of the Sun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
The Miracle of Calanda:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda
The Miracle of Lanciano:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano
You can believe, if you wish, that the Holy Spirit is allowing authentic miracles to occur in a false religion, but I don't.
P.S. Even the Orthodox consider the Bishop of Rome to be infallible with other Bishops, when he is present at an ecuмenical Council. Of course, how could a heretic ever be infallible?
The Primacy and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff 1 [From the epistle (12) "Quamvis Patrum traditio" to the African bishops, March 21, 418]
109 Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare to disagree wholly with its judgment, and it has always preserved this judgment by canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline up to this time by its laws pays the reverence which is due to the name of PETER, from whom it has itself descended . . . ; since therefore PETER the head is of such (Treat authority and he has confirmed the subsequent endeavors of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is fortified . . . by human as well as by divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold power of the name itself, nevertheless you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you ought to know, although we have such great authority that no one can dare to retract from our decision, yet we have done nothing which we have not voluntarily referred to your notice by letters . . . not because we did not know what ought to be done, or would do anything which by going against the advantage of the Church, would be displeasing.
http://www.onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Dogma.php?id=10&title=Denzinger+101-199&page=1
-
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
So you were shocked to hear in an earlier post that certain folks believe the Novus Ordo mass hands down a false faith and yet you seem to know about SV to label it schismatic.
Interesting.
-
Haha yup, you're right there. The Orthodox haven't done a very good job of proselytising. Mostly because when they haven't been actively persecuted, they've been too poor to do much. Also, the ethnic silos haven't helped.
How is this different than the apostles? Did anything of the sort keep them from proselytizing?
Actually, martyrdom did just that. The Christian Church was generally small and oppressed for its first 500 years.
It may have been small overall, but that didn't stop the proselytization. The increase in numbers was dramatic. As far as I can see the "Orthodox" does no such proselytizing. Therefore, complaining about persecution and poverty doesn't work. But hey, they are in good company with the VII church when it comes to failing in proselytization.
-
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
So you were shocked to hear in an earlier post that certain folks believe the Novus Ordo mass hands down a false faith and yet you seem to know about SV to label it schismatic.
Interesting.
Heh.
Nick, you are correct that one is either in communion with Rome or not. The idea of "partial" communion is a novelty. But the real question for a traditionalist is whether or not what we see as "Rome" (i.e., "The Vatican" under the leadership of Jorge Mario Bergoglio) is in communion with Rome. The traditionalist answers in the negative. The Conciliar Church has usurped most of the buildings and offices of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic (Roman) Church is in an eclipse of sorts.
As to visibility, there is no conflict between it and sedevacantism. The One True Church began at Penecost, with it's entire hierarchy hiding in an attic-- was the Church invisible? Or was it just very small?
-
been taught by the Church Fathers..
Saint Augustine, a Church father, taught us the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff:
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/09/augustine-on-papacy.html
Again, you and most other Roman Catholics make the logical leap from Peter and how he was broadly understood at the time to work in the early Church, to infallible, universal jurisdiction of specifically the Bishop of Rome, one of the (but not the only!) successors of the Apostle Peter. This text does not establish how Peter was regarded in the early Church, how Rome and the other Sees were united, and who's best followed such precedents.
Consider the Miracle of the Sun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
The Miracle of Calanda:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda
The Miracle of Lanciano:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano
You can believe, if you wish, that the Holy Spirit is allowing authentic miracles to occur in a false religion, but I don't.
P.S. Even the Orthodox consider the Bishop of Rome to be infallible with other Bishops, when he is present at an ecuмenical Council. Of course, how could a heretic ever be infallible?
The Primacy and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff 1 [From the epistle (12) "Quamvis Patrum traditio" to the African bishops, March 21, 418]
109 Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare to disagree wholly with its judgment, and it has always preserved this judgment by canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline up to this time by its laws pays the reverence which is due to the name of PETER, from whom it has itself descended . . . ; since therefore PETER the head is of such (Treat authority and he has confirmed the subsequent endeavors of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is fortified . . . by human as well as by divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold power of the name itself, nevertheless you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you ought to know, although we have such great authority that no one can dare to retract from our decision, yet we have done nothing which we have not voluntarily referred to your notice by letters . . . not because we did not know what ought to be done, or would do anything which by going against the advantage of the Church, would be displeasing.
http://www.onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Dogma.php?id=10&title=Denzinger+101-199&page=1
"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.
-
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
So you were shocked to hear in an earlier post that certain folks believe the Novus Ordo mass hands down a false faith and yet you seem to know about SV to label it schismatic.
Interesting.
I guess it's an attitude of "we adhere to the Office of the Papacy, but not the Pope". Such an attitude seems far removed from Orthodoxy or the historical church, since it was only the West that worked with these kinds of legalisms. I honestly hope you succeed in helping Rome clean house though.
-
Haha yup, you're right there. The Orthodox haven't done a very good job of proselytising. Mostly because when they haven't been actively persecuted, they've been too poor to do much. Also, the ethnic silos haven't helped.
How is this different than the apostles? Did anything of the sort keep them from proselytizing?
Actually, martyrdom did just that. The Christian Church was generally small and oppressed for its first 500 years.
It may have been small overall, but that didn't stop the proselytization. The increase in numbers was dramatic. As far as I can see the "Orthodox" does no such proselytizing. Therefore, complaining about persecution and poverty doesn't work. But hey, they are in good company with the VII church when it comes to failing in proselytization.
Monks and martyrs, sustained in prayer by the Faithful, are all the "advertising" the Orthodox need. If you want power and worldly certainty about faith, consider Islam. It's demonic, but it's pretty tough to deny that the Koran is not of this world, and God blessed them with armies to beat the Christians time and again.
-
I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.
So you were shocked to hear in an earlier post that certain folks believe the Novus Ordo mass hands down a false faith and yet you seem to know about SV to label it schismatic.
Interesting.
Heh.
Nick, you are correct that one is either in communion with Rome or not. The idea of "partial" communion is a novelty. But the real question for a traditionalist is whether or not what we see as "Rome" (i.e., "The Vatican" under the leadership of Jorge Mario Bergoglio) is in communion with Rome. The traditionalist answers in the negative. The Conciliar Church has usurped most of the buildings and offices of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic (Roman) Church is in an eclipse of sorts.
As to visibility, there is no conflict between it and sedevacantism. The One True Church began at Penecost, with it's entire hierarchy hiding in an attic-- was the Church invisible? Or was it just very small?
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.
-
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.
-
Nishant wrote:
Yes, I agree sedevacantism is hardly compatible with this. But that is another matter altogether.
I am not following you here. The quote from St. Maximus does not conflict with sedevacatism.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
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.
-
Hello all!
I thought that it would be interesting to start this thread and see what happens. I'm a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. I converted after a lengthy process of study, prayer, discussions with people on both sides, and at the end of it all attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
From what I've found, the Orthodox have the most historically consistent track record of ecclesiology, doctrine/ teaching of Faith, and practice/ Liturgy (the place where one's Faith is formed). All the changes that resulted in the Great Schism, and further changes afterwards, were solidly on the side of Rome. These changes were built up on the basis of an altered conception of authority, that was not Catholic, in that it was not recognized (by the universal Church... including Christians outside the direct hierarchy of Rome) as part of the Faith passed on from Christ to the Apostles and onwards through time.
Essentially, the Roman Church has been building on sand for the past thousand-plus years. Given the "diversity" in Faith (notably in the Liturgy, but also between various movements within the Church) as well as new versions of the Church every few hundred years or so (keeping up with the times?) it's a house built on sand, currently in the process of collapse.
Since I don't want any future generations of my family to be damaged in Faith when someone tells them that the Novus Ordo (or whatever the new liturgical innovation happens to be) is perfectly fine, "just another tradition", leaving the Roman realm seems necessary.
The Orthodox have their own problems, but these don't seem to seriously impact Faith. Due to their conciliar structure that they've always had... it's easier to correct others for mistakes in Faith than in the hierarchical, authoritative Roman Catholic Church... they've best maintained the Apostolic Faith.
I'm not sure where this post will lead. My intent is less to convert people (that's the job of the Holy Spirit), but more to get all of this out there to a semi-sympathetic audience. Any discussion from here, I hope, will lead people towards Truth.
Convert or Burn in Hell nick.
-
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.
(http://www.geocities.ws/rolandcast/imagenes/christusimperator494520ravena.jpg)
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.
-
No such comparison with the Church and the Military in the East?
Please remind the Serbs.
-
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!
-
Nick, is Mt Athos eastern enough for you ? Here is a monastic chant that uses the military analogy, which of course St Paul also teaches, from which it follows that this image was in use during the time of the Apostles.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LT_ANOw-YzU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DLT_ANOw-YzU
-
"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
-
"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
The Pharisees made the exact same accusation against our Lord.
-
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 (http://orestesbrownson.com/108.html) 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.
-
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!
"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:23, RSV)
It is the Holy Spirit which guided the true Successors of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, which meant guiding them as to what is (and is not) sinful. It is only in these Last Days that, like Pope Honorius I, has the claimants to the See of Peter fallen into apostasy and heresy. Is such scandalous? Yes, absolutely; however, the universal Ordinary Magisterium is absolutely immutable, coming as it did from the immutable One and Triune God through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ, a Perfect Being.
You have no one to guide you, Nick, except your Orthodox bishop who cannot agree with his fellow bishops on what is fundamentally true. And, then, there are the Coptic Christians. They hold both Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox to be in error. So, why should we believe you other them?
These divisions are not, in my opinion, what the Holy Spirit willed (or wills) for the One True Church, and there is absolutely nothing that you could ever say to me that would convince me that Eastern Orthodoxy is the religion which Christ willed. I can provide you with a plethora of quotes from Saint Augustine and those Fathers before him which asserted the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and you will not be able to provide a single quote from anyone who took Saint Augustine to task for his claims. At a very minimum, asserting the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (or, at least the chair) is neither heretical nor false, and the alternative, well, there is none, at least as far as I am concerned. What you (and, the Coptics, too) propose is a Church without a head, a view no different from Protestantism with its plethora of "private interpretations." Even sedes assert the immutability and primacy of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which no Pope is free to change, but obviously, free to deny, as scandalous as that may be.
Ok, thank you for mentioning the Magisterium. From what I understand, this is the Pope teaching in accordance with previous Popes and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, you have this.
In Orthodoxy, each Bishop (as well as the priests and the Faithful) has read each others' stuff, and has read, ideally extensively, and been taught by the Church Fathers, previous and current Patriarchs, monks, saintly elders, priests, theologians, etc etc. ALL of the Bishops are normally in a state of wilful communion with each other, since they all recognize each other to be of the same Faith. When issues come up, a council at some scale is called, and things get resolved. It's not a perfect system, but it's worked well for keeping the Faith the same across the board and for working out problems in time. The interpretations and teachings are very public, not private, and widely agreed on.
Well, you can send as many proof texts as you like. Again, this is a Protestant-style mindset, and neither proves or denies their validity since it's disconnected from Holy Tradition.
It is totally blasphemous to say "it is not a perfect system", if you really believe this was the true Church of Christ. The Catholic Church is a perfect society which has everything she needs from her Divine Founder to do Her mission. Which is to go and baptize, teach all nations in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Orthodox Church is a servant of the State, and not the State a servant of the Church, interesting how you can reconcile this with Scripture. Something else we can put under the rug on the non important category right mate?
Do you really expect for the Bishop's to know EVERY single Father of the Church of which many times contradicted Ecuмenical Councils. Had serious errors just look at Origen, Tertullian etc... Have the time, money, effort to do all of that and expect for every single Bishop to do the same plus keep up with all the modern theological gibberish of the Orthodox Church in its own day? Keep up with what other Bishops are thinking etc...
No every single Roman Catholic who has even read their basic Catechism knows what he has to believe in order to be saved. He knows with absolute certainty and does not have to spend years of filtering the Father's of the Church, studying difficult text (which for most of history was not in the common language of the people, but in ecclesiastical Latin or Greek) etc... It amazes me how some people idealize how things "work" as opposed to how they really work. You need to talk to more people on the ground, I have spent well over a decade talking about the faith with real people. You would be surprised how simple most people are... Anything complicated and you have already lost them completely this is the strength of the Roman Church, from the greatest theological mind, to the most simple humble peasant have true unity of faith on everything. Not just "wide agreements" which means absolutely nothing.
-
"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.
-
Two of the children, Francisco and Jacinta, 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.
I corrected a huge mistake. One keystroke makes the difference.
Also, the comment against Our Lady's apparitions from the resident Oriental schismatic seems more and more offensive.
I don't know, but we can't "dialogue" with people who despise the holy Scapular (without apparently knowing about it), but then again what else are we to expect when someone has apostatized to the Oriental schism...
-
Hobbledehoy said:
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.
Here is the crux of it. Nick says he was a Catholic and he converted to the Orhtodox schism.
Nick, as a Catholic, did you ever pray the Holy Rosary? The Holy Theotokos will answer all your prayers and lead you in the path that leads to life.
You've made a pretty persistent attempt to defend your false religion, but you have really come to the wrong place if you want to convert others here to your sect.
You know less about the Orthodox than most posters here and even less about the Catholic Faith and what purports to be the Catholic religion, but is not, i.e. conciliar church of Vatican 2. May I suggest that you go and do your homework.
Nick said: 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!
See! you don't even know the meaning of the Immaculate Conception. No Catholic would say that Mary was not conceived in the usual way, but that her sould was always free from sin. Angel Gabriel addressed her as Full of Grace! That means that there is no sin in her.
Nick said: evil is not in the condom, since it's just a piece of latex!
I remember reading about some Fillipino village that was inundated with unwanted condoms. They used them in some horticultural venture. Can't remember what, but they were put to excellent use. These people did not sin in using them for another purpose than that unintended by the generous donors. But if they had used them to stop babies coming into the world, or so they could prevent getting some venereal disease, then that would have been sinful. I know that, as an "Orthodox", you probably won't be able to recognise the subtle differences.
Gooch said: Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 1: 210.
I have found this very useful in refuting "Orthodox" false beliefs. The "Orthodox" love to say they follow the Fathers. Get yourself a copy, Nick, and look up Papacy in the index, especially take note of those hundreds of references which illustrate the on-going primacy of Peter and his successors. I am praying for you, Nick.
-
Belarus ( Dictatorship, stagnated economically)
Bulgaria (Corrupt basketcase)
Cyprus (Bankrupt basketcase)
Georgia (Probably the best of the list, but poor and corrupt)
Greece (Bankrupt basketcase full of very lazy people supported by Germans)
Macedonia (political basketcase)
Moldova (absolute and total basketcase, worst of the lot, except perhaps for Serbia)
Montenegro (Rubbish)
Romania (About the best of the lot but still incredibly corrupt)
Russia (Corrupt to the core)
Serbia (Been a mess for 100+ years)
Ukraine (Like Russia but poorer)
Have any Orthodox countries actually got themselves together, economically/politically with legal and administrative systems that actually help the population rather than exist to line the pockets of bureaucrats?
In which of these countries could you expect a fair trial? (Tip: Cyprus is a British justice system).
If the true religion does not translate into peace, economic prosperity and those countries leading the way in the world, culturally, politically, for some period of time, albeit that all countries will have some problems from time to time, then one has to wonder about the merits of all that truth and holiness. Why wouldn't the Holy Spirit bless and protect those countries and help to to avoid wars or develop as strong political and economic powers?
Even Job got his goods and his comfortable life back eventually; when God was done testing him.
What exactly are the fruits of Orthodoxy? All the above countries are corrupt holes that young people are trying to escape from given half a chance.
I fully accept that western Europe has dropped the ball, but at least we had the ball for a few hundred of the last 1000 years. On that basis alone, as well as prosletizing the new world, Africa and Asia the smart money would have to be on Catholicism being the horse God is backing.
-
In my personal experience, without fail, ALL fallen away Catholics who convert to "another religion", do so to be confirmed in their sins, like for instance divorce and re-marriage (adultery).
"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables". (2Tim 4)
-
In my personal experience, without fail, ALL fallen away Catholics who convert to "another religion", do so to be confirmed in their sins, like for instance divorce and re-marriage (adultery).
"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables". (2Tim 4)
"what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" (Mark 8:36)
All Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are lost for all eternity if they die in their religion. Quite a risk to take to be able to re-marry.
-
Why bother? Just stay in the Catholic Church and obtain an annulment. It's pretty rare that they are refused.
-
Why bother? Just stay in the Catholic Church and obtain an annulment. It's pretty rare that they are refused.
Well, if you really want to be damned . . .