Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: forlorn on February 03, 2019, 03:56:49 PM
-
The videos are from the Dimonds, but they don't address or pertain to sedevacantism below. They demonstrate how the development of Orthodox theology and doctrine after the schism contradicts what the Church taught before the Great Schism, thereby proving that Orthodoxy CANNOT be the true successor of the Church as they claim. Obviously we already know this, but you may find the material in these videos useful if you are ever trying to convert an Orthodox schismatic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT8NaQszsRo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d07mgLoOW8g
-
How about Byzantine rite Catholics?
-
Great videos. I have thought for sometime that while Trads are busy bashing the daylights out of each other to prove their position is correct, meanwhile, Catholics are getting sniped by disaffected individuals like Dyer.
-
How about Byzantine rite Catholics?
I don't know their history exactly, but presumably they wouldn't be in Communion if they held heretical doctrines regarding God's nature.
-
There was a Ukrainian Catholic Church that opened near me about 4 years back and I after I was done with Easter Mass at my chapel I attended their first Easter Mass, only to discover they said much of the liturgy in English, had female readers, and when they said the Creed in English, they left out the Filioque. After the Mass was over a newly ordained priest came up to me and tried to convince me that Catholics did the sacraments all wrong and that there was no place called Hell, that the only difference in Heaven was how the damned experience God's presence.
-
There was a Ukrainian Catholic Church that opened near me about 4 years back and I after I was done with Easter Mass at my chapel I attended their first Easter Mass, only to discover they said much of the liturgy in English, had female readers, and when they said the Creed in English, they left out the Filioque. After the Mass was over a newly ordained priest came up to me and tried to convince me that Catholics did the sacraments all wrong and that there was no place called Hell, that the only difference in Heaven was how the damned experience God's presence.
English is not a problem. Some Eastern Rite churches were using the vernacular even during the time of St. Pius X.
Female lectors are a problem ... but certainly do not invalidate the Mass.
As for his claim that there's no hell, he's a heretic and would be repudiated by the Ukrainian Church ... that is not some belief of theirs. He should be reported to his bishop, and then to the patriarch. There are modernist heretics everywhere.
-
Eastern Catholics venerate St Gregory palamas. But that doesn't mean they automatically believe his doctrine. You could say this essence-energy stuff is just a strange doctrine of his and not necessarily a theological view of eastern Catholicism.
-
The filioque is never part of Ukrainian Greek Catholic liturgy. There is an agreement on that as of the time of union.
It is also a valid eastern catholic theological expression stating that damnation is the burning of the damned by the fire of God's presence
This opinion is Antiochian and Alexandrian not Greek
Also the whole energies thing is actually accepted by Rome and has been for some time
-
The filioque is never part of Ukrainian Greek Catholic liturgy. There is an agreement on that as of the time of union.
It is also a valid eastern catholic theological expression stating that damnation is the burning of the damned by the fire of God's presence
This opinion is Antiochian and Alexandrian not Greek
Also the whole energies thing is actually accepted by Rome and has been for some time
Can you explain the essence-energy distinction? Or provide some links? I've tried understanding it, but it still makes not much sense.
As for Rome accepting the teaching, what do you mean? Do you mean tolerate, or formally accept? (In a council or encyclical or whatever else)
-
I mean that Byzantine Catholics are free to hold this. The whole controversy was started by a monk with an ax to grind who misrepresented what Gregory actually taught to Rome. The myth of a problem with Gregorys teaching remains because of a series of pronouncments made as a result of the misrepresentation.
-
This frequently happens because some zealous individual does not understand the difference between theological expressions in different traditions.
Basically Rome is like a structural engineer. Other churches in the Catholic communion may be plumbers the engineer may say you have enough room to flush one oz of grease and your septic tank will flush fine. The plumber will say never. That doesn't mean that they think the other is wrong
-
I mean that Byzantine Catholics are free to hold this. The whole controversy was started by a monk with an ax to grind who misrepresented what Gregory actually taught to Rome. The myth of a problem with Gregorys teaching remains because of a series of pronouncments made as a result of the misrepresentation.
Do you believe St gregory's doctrine? What does it mean to you? I've been reading a lot of eastern Christian thought lately and the essence-energy distinction, after the aerial toll-house theory, is one of those teachings that confuses me still.
-
English is not a problem. Some Eastern Rite churches were using the vernacular even during the time of St. Pius X.
Female lectors are a problem ... but certainly do not invalidate the Mass.
As for his claim that there's no hell, he's a heretic and would be repudiated by the Ukrainian Church ... that is not some belief of theirs. He should be reported to his bishop, and then to the patriarch. There are modernist heretics everywhere.
The point being there is no inherent protection in the Eastern Rite from incursions from the outside, with many "Orthodox" views making their way in easily.
The filioque is never part of Ukrainian Greek Catholic liturgy. There is an agreement on that as of the time of union.
It is also a valid eastern catholic theological expression stating that damnation is the burning of the damned by the fire of God's presence
This opinion is Antiochian and Alexandrian not Greek
Also the whole energies thing is actually accepted by Rome and has been for some time
Right, but if there is to be a restoration, if there is to be true unity within the Church, the Filioque must win out. These differences have been permitted to exist so far, but it doesn't mean it will continue to be that way. The clock is ticking on the bubble created by distance, language and politics.
Heaven is a place and Hell is a place. The damned do not share anything with the blessed, they are not mingled. The wrath of God consumes the damned but this wrath is not to be found in Heaven. This opinion like many other opinions will get straightened out once the Church finds her legs again.
The "energies" thing has never been addressed in any of our councils, encyclicals or the like. Barlaam was not the best representative of the West himself, he too had a problem with the Filioque. He did not attempt to ask for assistance from the Pope or any of the bishops, so his defense was bound to fail. Divine Energies are contrary to Divine Simplicity: a knowable god is set up alongside and an unknowable one. We were made by Him to know Him in the capacity of a created thing to know an uncreated being. He cannot be encapsulated as other created things are, and the urge to do so is Satanic precisely because of its reductiveness. He can be known through analogy and He can be known through Christ of course, we just can't see Him in all His glory until the Beatific Vision.
But this is giving the idea more credit than it is due. This belief had it's origins in Eastern paganism, and foolish monks. The appeal of achieving an enlightened status through glorified naval-gazing over actual use of ones intellect to make a rational argument was too great for them. As long as they could flaunt their mystical "experience" without having any rational means of testing such an experience, they could say whatever they wanted! Textbook false spirituality.
Barely 100 years after Palamism became a settled issue for the Greeks, the fall of Constantinople and the rise of Russia as the defacto religious center for the East became a reality. A true sign of the bastard flock it became and remains to this day. Eastern Rite Catholics should be running from those errors even if no official pronouncement has been made.
It won't happen under a VII Pope however. Considering the many pains both Popes John XXIII and Paul VI went through to make sure the Russian Orthodox would attend and specifically not to mention Communism. Then we have JPII who, among the many other tragic decisions he made during his pontificate, made an agreement not to say the Filioque whenever he was in the presence of Schismatic Orthodox patriarchs:
Protestant Ryan Reeves talks about being invited to one of these occasions in 2004 (23:19):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_s9Rcsg5UI
Suddenly JPII's Ostpolitik takes on a new dimension.
-
You just proved my point, what you describe of energies is Baarlam's distortion not actual Greek teaching.
Your stand on the filioque is contrary to church teaching since the common creed recited at Florence didn't contain the filioque which is heretical in Greek since it indicates a double origin, which is why even Greek Catholics do not have it as part of the creed. You do know that the Pope refused to put it in the creed and that it adorned the old St Peter's in gold without it.
The points are somewhat obscure and no one outside of Mark of Ephesus is prepared to die on those hills
-
Also there are eastern Catholics of varying rites some don't care about Rome/Constantinople fighting since they have no part in it and get pissed off by being lumped into the Byzantine world. It is like when people call all SSPXers Sedes, or Feenites. Or Resistance Pfeifferites.
-
You just proved my point, what you describe of energies is Baarlam's distortion not actual Greek teaching.
Your stand on the filioque is contrary to church teaching since the common creed recited at Florence didn't contain the filioque which is heretical in Greek since it indicates a double origin, which is why even Greek Catholics do not have it as part of the creed. You do know that the Pope refused to put it in the creed and that it adorned the old St Peter's in gold without it.
The points are somewhat obscure and no one outside of Mark of Ephesus is prepared to die on those hills
What's the difference between Barlaam's explanation of Palamas' teachings and what Palamas actually taught?
-
Too technical treatises were written on the subject. Quite simply to Gregory God is experienced by the faithful in concrete ways in this life. To Baarlam God is only known intellectually.