OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 08:17:14 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?  (Read 15230 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #225 on: June 29, 2011, 07:39:05 AM »

I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   Roll Eyes
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?
Bernie Madoff, is that you? police
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #226 on: June 29, 2011, 07:40:14 AM »

What's more it seems like most people who use it have a really low view of the magistereum (thinking them a bunch of naive, gynophobic old men stuck in the Middle Ages).
Use what?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #227 on: June 29, 2011, 07:41:49 AM »

I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   Roll Eyes
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

I hate to suggest that you don't know something about Catholic teaching but this talk of greater and lesser guilt is all well above our paygrade.

We don't judge the guilt of a sin.  We cannot do that, so it is idle speculation to do so in any context.  So your initial statement of 'If they don't know' is a loaded minefield.

Best to stick with being able to identify objective sin, its gravity and what SHOULD constitute an informed Catholic conscience.  IF you are so compelled to mention the fact that a person's guilt is mitigated by many things that we cannot see...then you're on more solid ground.  Otherwise you present what appears to be an absurdity and that can be scandalous [in its traditional form].
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #228 on: June 29, 2011, 07:45:21 AM »

I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   Roll Eyes
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary." 

Absolutely!!...

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #229 on: June 29, 2011, 07:48:39 AM »

I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   Roll Eyes
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary."
I think what he is referring to is someone who was raised with the idea that stealing is not wrong, all their life they were told it's a right thing to do. Someone who honestly thinks it is right, who has no guile.

St. Paul speaks of the law of God written in the heart's of men.  We can be fairly sure that somewhere along the line the natural conscience of a man or woman will let them know that they are doing harm to another, or harm is being done to them in the same manner, and they will stand at that crossroads where they must choose to either follow that still small voice or reject and go on hell bent...

We are NOT products of our environment so totally that it over rides all natural inclination to seek the face of God.  That we ARE products of our environment is the Great Fallacy of the modern world...
Logged

Volnutt
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant Universalist
Posts: 3,686



« Reply #230 on: June 29, 2011, 07:49:00 AM »

What's more it seems like most people who use it have a really low view of the magistereum (thinking them a bunch of naive, gynophobic old men stuck in the Middle Ages).
Use what?
Birth control.
Logged

Herr Jesus Christus, Sohns Gottes, erbarme dich meiner, eines Suenders.
Volnutt
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant Universalist
Posts: 3,686



« Reply #231 on: June 29, 2011, 07:50:51 AM »

I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   Roll Eyes
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary."
I think what he is referring to is someone who was raised with the idea that stealing is not wrong, all their life they were told it's a right thing to do. Someone who honestly thinks it is right, who has no guile.

St. Paul speaks of the law of God written in the heart's of men.  We can be fairly sure that somewhere along the line the natural conscience of a man or woman will let them know that they are doing harm to another, or harm is being done to them in the same manner, and they will stand at that crossroads where they must choose to either follow that still small voice or reject and go on hell bent...

We are NOT products of our environment so totally that it over rides all natural inclination to seek the face of God.  That we ARE products of our environment is the Great Fallacy of the modern world...
Agreed. I was merely trying to exegete Wyatt's statement.
Logged

Herr Jesus Christus, Sohns Gottes, erbarme dich meiner, eines Suenders.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #232 on: June 29, 2011, 08:33:40 AM »

I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   Roll Eyes
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary."
I think what he is referring to is someone who was raised with the idea that stealing is not wrong, all their life they were told it's a right thing to do. Someone who honestly thinks it is right, who has no guile.

St. Paul speaks of the law of God written in the heart's of men.  We can be fairly sure that somewhere along the line the natural conscience of a man or woman will let them know that they are doing harm to another, or harm is being done to them in the same manner, and they will stand at that crossroads where they must choose to either follow that still small voice or reject and go on hell bent...

We are NOT products of our environment so totally that it over rides all natural inclination to seek the face of God.  That we ARE products of our environment is the Great Fallacy of the modern world...
Agreed. I was merely trying to exegete Wyatt's statement.

Ah...good!!!
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #233 on: June 29, 2011, 08:35:15 AM »

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
Unfortunately your magisterium, arguing on the basis of natural law, can't make such a distinction.  Kuntsevych, for instance, didn't seem to think killing in the promotion of "the holy union" was a sin, much less a crime.

This is pretty baseless provocation.  The more I hear about that period the more a revere his episcopacy.  When Orthodox admit to lying about a man after he's been murdered because they know their vile tongues contributed to his death...and there's a record of those cases....then I tend not to be well disposed to those who seek to perpetuate the lies.
Yes, those "lying Orthodox" have come up before:
(*)  Dimitry Pospielovsky is Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario.  He is the author of The Russian Church Under The Soviet Regime, 1917-1982v (SVS Press, 1984) and is one of the foremost authorities on Russian Church History.


----------

The Orthodox Church And The History Of Russia...Professor Dimitry Pospielovsky



Page 96-97

The Polish government could ill afford continuous persecutions of the Orthodox.  A war with Turkey loomed on the horizon, and in 1621 the Cossacks presented an ultimatum to the Polish Crown, stating that unless all persecution of the Orthodox Church ceased, they would refuse to fight the Turks.  In response, the 1623 Sejm declared toleration of the Orthodox Church and permitted the legimitization of Orthodox bishops and the restoration of their dioceses.

But the joy of the Orthodox was short lived.  The legalization of the Orthodox Church resulted in a mass return to Orthodoxy of the uniates, particularly in Eastern Belorussia, where the unia had been imposed only recently, and where the fanatical Uniate bishop Josaphat Kuntsevich of Polotsk and Vitebsk responded with bloody attacks on Orthodox households and churches with the help of locally stationed regular troops at his disposal.  Even uniate bishop Metropolitan Rutskii in vain called on Josephat to exercise moderation.  Then the citizens of Vitebsk rose in revolt, lynched the bishop, and threw his body in the Dvina.  A few days later the body was recovered from the water by the Uniates, and Kuntsevitch was proclaimed a martyr-saint, highly revered by the UGCC to this day.

Roman Catholic revenge was immediate and brutal.  Ten citizens of Vitebsk were executed, the city lost its immunities granted under the Magdeburg Law, and all Orthodox churches, including those situated on the brotherhood lands, were closed and confiscated.  Everywhere in the commonwealth, the Orthodox lost the right not only to build but even to repair churches; and Pope Urban VII proclaimed that any Roman Catholic who dared to oppose the use of the sword against the Orthodox would be excommunicated.


The status of the Orthodox Church after Kuntsevich episode remained so tragic, that Job, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, secretly appealed to the Tsar micheal of Russia in 1625 to annex Rus' parts of the Commonwealth to Muscovy.
You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

You mean the stuff that gathered dust in the Vatican, untill the Poles in Galicia got the bright idea of pushing the issue, part of the push to polanize Galicia?
116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.
116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.
On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka

http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.


So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.

Or maybe these are the lying Orthodox you speak of:
The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.

Such stories would be more credible if they were not so embedded in fairy tales of how the Orthodox rushed to the "Union" of Brest of their own free will and without compulsion from the PL king's sword.

Some views:
Four hundred years Union of Brest (1596-1996): a critical re-evaluation ... By Bert Groen, William Peter van den Bercken
http://books.google.com/books?id=9FN9gT7CQw4C&pg=PA81&dq=Kuntsevich+Orthodox&cd=3#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevich%20Orthodox&f=false
The Orthodox Church in the history of Russia By Dimitry Pospielovsky
http://books.google.com/books?id=2cP0wc_E6yEC&pg=PA97&dq=Kuntsevich+Orthodox&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevich%20Orthodox&f=false
Religion and society in Russia: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries By Paul Bushkovitch
http://books.google.com/books?id=vB0OqzCU5i4C&pg=PA163&dq=Kuntsevich+Orthodox&lr=&cd=11#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevich%20Orthodox&f=false
Yes.  One has to wonder where some people put their common sense when reading these white washed historical revision put out by the RCC. Those that are nieve enough to believe them. If St Josephat was such a loving man, why would he ellicit such a reaction from the Orthodox?  Was it just a full moon?  Or the revision of the Union of Brest where its indicated that a group if illerate people undertood enough to think that RC theology was superior!  Or why they wouldn't want to accept the western Latin Rites if they were so superior!
You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

Irish Hermit,
I would like to recommend the book, Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are Saint Josaphat’s replies to Sapiega, denying any involvement in harming Orthodox Christians.  
Also, the book goes on to say that Sapiega severely punished those who killed Saint Josaphat and the people of Vitebsk felt they were being punished by God for the death of this holy saint.

17 executions IIRC.  That the Polish state took out the stick isn't a suprise: the "Union," after all, was state policy, and Kuntsevich was still the King's man.  Odd that if Vitebsk felt he was so holy, that it remained so Orthodox.

Quote
The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.

Since the Orthodox officially ceased to exist in 1592, very odd that they were around to be eyewitnesses and swear testimony. Could Orthodox legally give testimony, being non-existent? Or is this "Orthodox in communion with Rome?"  The PL king only bent to reality in 1632, nearly two decades after the events.  Was perjury for the beatification part of the deal to relegalize the Orthodox?

Reply:  A very good question!  Especially since not only was the Orthodox Church non-existent but to claim to be Orthodox was still considered an act of treason against the state.  Did the Polish state grant some type of immunity to these people who suddenly admitted to being Orthodox?
Did the Polish government validate testimony from people who were 'enemies of the state'?


Ref:  The Council met in the city of Brest on October 6, 1596.  In order to prevent a parallel Orthodox council in any of the numerious Orthodox Churches in the city, the now Uniate Metropolitan of Kiev sealed all Orthodox Churches  on the day before the Council was to begin, except for the cathedral where the Council was to take place.  The Orthodox, nevertheless, converged on Brest as well, with prince Ostrozhskii and his private  army at the head.  Failing to find an open church, and after waiting in vain for an invitation from the Uniates, they accepted an offer of a Protestant church school for a separate Orthodox  Council.  The Uniate Council passed a resolution excommunicating all the Orthodox clergy and laity participating in the Orthodox Council.  The Orthodox in turn suspended all the clergy and lay participants in the Uniate Council and addressed a petition to the King, asking him to deprive "the traitors" of their dioceses and parishes.  But the Polish  King decided otherwise:  his edict of October 15, LEGALIZED ONLY THOSE BYZANTINE RITE CHRISTIANS WHO JOINED THE UNIA;  IT DECREED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH NULL AND VOID AND ALL ITS CLERGY EXCOMMUNICATED; WHILE CONTINUING MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE.

I wouldn't put it Passed the catholic church after stitching him up,that dipping him in a vat of wax sculpting him, and walla it a miracle un-corrupted...... Grin

How sad to see Orthodox Christians still taking pot shots at Saint Josaphat. Sad

It is fact based on sworn testimonies that Orthodox Christians regarded him as a holy man and that the accusations against him were completely false.

How can non-existent Orthodox (the Orthodox having ceased to exist in 1596  Roll Eyes) swear to anything, in particular as they had no legal standing? Is the sotry of the Orthodox joyfully flocking to submit to the Vatican also based on such "testimony?"


Quote
Plus, are we forgetting that Archbishop Meletius Smotritsky, who persecuted Saint Josaphat, converted as a result of his martyrdom?

Are we forgetting that someone trying to save his own neck can say all manner of things?
http://books.google.com/books?id=9FN9gT7CQw4C&pg=PA81&dq=Meletij+Smotritsky+Kuntsevich&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Meletij%20Smotritsky%20Kuntsevich&f=false
And then the Jews
If we discount Orthodox and Catholic propaganda the only neutral group, the Jews spoke favorably of St.Josaphat and testified on his behalf.

Not heard of "a pox on both their houses, divide and conquer"? IIRC, the Vatican didn't accept Jews testifying in court at the time.
In Poland Lithuania, the Orthodox at the time had nothing they could offer the Jews, whereas the Poles Lithuania could have then expelled or worse.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #234 on: June 29, 2011, 08:38:09 AM »

I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   Roll Eyes
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

I hate to suggest that you don't know something about Catholic teaching but this talk of greater and lesser guilt is all well above our paygrade.

We don't judge the guilt of a sin.  We cannot do that, so it is idle speculation to do so in any context.  So your initial statement of 'If they don't know' is a loaded minefield.

Best to stick with being able to identify objective sin, its gravity and what SHOULD constitute an informed Catholic conscience.  
The one-size-fits-all of scholasticism strikes again.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #235 on: June 29, 2011, 08:57:16 AM »

Old shibboleths!!

To clip is hip!  I don't buy the bias.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 08:57:53 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #236 on: June 29, 2011, 09:17:03 AM »

Old shibboleths!!

To clip is hip!  I don't buy the bias.
because you're snockered on the Kool-Aid.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Volnutt
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant Universalist
Posts: 3,686



« Reply #237 on: June 29, 2011, 09:29:36 AM »

I'm not sure the Orthodox have room to talk with Saint Theodosius burning gays and Saint Justinian persecuting heretics.
Logged

Herr Jesus Christus, Sohns Gottes, erbarme dich meiner, eines Suenders.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #238 on: June 29, 2011, 09:31:37 AM »

not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 Cry Cry

Let's not overstate the matter. People (whether Catholic or otherwise) who don't believe that it's a sin, are not committing mortal sin by doing it.

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).

If someone really doesn't know that murder is wrong, then he/she isn't sinning by committed murder. But, as Wyatt pointed out, that's extremely rare.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #239 on: June 29, 2011, 09:34:12 AM »

I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   Roll Eyes
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary." 

Indeed. In that case, the stealing isn't so much a sin as a symptom of an already-existing problem.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #240 on: June 29, 2011, 09:35:36 AM »

not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 Cry Cry

Let's not overstate the matter. People (whether Catholic or otherwise) who don't believe that it's a sin, are not committing mortal sin by doing it.

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).

If someone really doesn't know that murder is wrong, then he/she isn't sinning by committed murder. But, as Wyatt pointed out, that's extremely rare.
Oh?  The course of the Twentieth Century would say otherwise.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,698



WWW
« Reply #241 on: June 29, 2011, 09:35:58 AM »

I'm not sure the Orthodox have room to talk with Saint Theodosius burning gays and Saint Justinian persecuting heretics.

 Smiley That's never stopped some of the posters here before.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #242 on: June 29, 2011, 09:37:24 AM »

I'm not sure the Orthodox have room to talk with Saint Theodosius burning gays and Saint Justinian persecuting heretics.
You mean the Emperors Theodosius and Justinian?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,698



WWW
« Reply #243 on: June 29, 2011, 09:37:40 AM »

Quote from: ialmisry
Oh?  The course of the Twentieth Century would say otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that not everybody in the Twentieth Century committed murder.  Roll Eyes
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #244 on: June 29, 2011, 09:41:47 AM »

Quote from: ialmisry
Oh?  The course of the Twentieth Century would say otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that not everybody in the Twentieth Century committed murder.  Roll Eyes
Didn't say they did (I for one didn't). but there were plenty around who did, or haven't you heard?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,698



WWW
« Reply #245 on: June 29, 2011, 09:44:31 AM »

Do you have to goad people in every post?  Roll Eyes Sigh...

I can't take it anymore.
Logged
Volnutt
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant Universalist
Posts: 3,686



« Reply #246 on: June 29, 2011, 09:47:58 AM »

I'm not sure the Orthodox have room to talk with Saint Theodosius burning gays and Saint Justinian persecuting heretics.
You mean the Emperors Theodosius and Justinian?
Yep.
Logged

Herr Jesus Christus, Sohns Gottes, erbarme dich meiner, eines Suenders.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #247 on: June 29, 2011, 09:52:45 AM »

Old shibboleths!!

To clip is hip!  I don't buy the bias.
because you're snockered on the Kool-Aid.

And you trust that you are not...

I am trained as an historian, so my interest is in the truth, in so far as we can know it.  When you set your sources up against those collected during the canonization process, then maybe I'll pay attention to you.  Till then I think you are drawing blood for your own purposes and that has no credibility with me.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #248 on: June 29, 2011, 10:17:09 AM »

Old shibboleths!!

To clip is hip!  I don't buy the bias.
because you're snockered on the Kool-Aid.

And you trust that you are not...
Never touch the stuff.

I am trained as an historian,
well that makes two of us.

so my interest is in the truth,
the latest version of the Vatican's present truth, that is.
in so far as we can know it.
Your taking of pro-Brest fairy tales as the Gospel Truth belies that.
When you set your sources up against those collected during the canonization process, then maybe I'll pay attention to you.
Then ignore me.

As for sources from the canonization process, we have the well documented fraud in the service of a righteous cause known as the Nuremberg trials, and the circumstances of Kuntsevych's life and death are nowhere near as well documented, nor does his canonization qualify as a righteous cause.

The cause for canonization was taken up in 1628.  The map of the area looked like this:

Why, it looks as if Vitebsk (Witebsk on the map) and Polotsk (Połock on the map) were under the heel of the King of Poland. Wonder if that affected the testimony any.  Of course not. Haven't you read? Everyone rushed to embrace "the holy union" as Kuntsevych called it. That's why he was so popular with the populace that they had to kill him.

Till then I think you are drawing blood for your own purposes
Not drawing any blood.  Just listening to the blood crying out to heaven.

and that has no credibility with me.
because it doesn't have your Vatican's nihil obstat and imprematur.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #249 on: June 29, 2011, 10:34:09 AM »


because it doesn't have your Vatican's nihil obstat and imprematur.

Yes.  Essentially.  Because the process of canonization is never ever taken lightly and the mountains of data that are collected generally do not allow the kind of bias that you will find in secular histories.   Canonization is for the souls of others, not the soul of the one being acknowledged as being holy.  It is not in ANYONE's best interest to lie about the individual concerned.

So yes.  Indeed I do trust that process as much as I do not trust the secular process for writing, re-writing and re-processing secular history.  Yes.  I do believe Orthodox faithful lied about St. Josaphat's complicity in the thuggery.  I think they lied to themselves about their own...I think they still do in places.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 10:34:58 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #250 on: June 29, 2011, 02:45:28 PM »

Then what do you call buying a indulgence or saying a Mass for the dead? Sounds like works to me.

Please be careful. Orthodoxy rejects the first, but does the second. We commemorate and pray for the departed at every divine liturgy and we also have memorial services for them.
I know. I was talking about Catholicism.

My point is that Orthodoxy is not based on "works" theology, and prayer is not just "something we do" or a "motion we go though" to try to get something out of God who owes us nothing.

I find it unfair to say it's "works" when Rome does it, but not when Orthodoxy does the same thing, unless you are being fair and calling it "works" when Orthodoxy does it too, which we don't believe in "works".
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #251 on: June 29, 2011, 02:56:03 PM »

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
I don;t see how that would be possible. Catholics have a serious obligation to inform themselves of right and wrong and since the Pope has issued an encyclical Humanae Vitae, any ignorance in this matter would itself be a sin, would it not?
I don't see how ignorance could be a sin.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #252 on: June 29, 2011, 02:58:05 PM »

I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   Roll Eyes
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

I hate to suggest that you don't know something about Catholic teaching but this talk of greater and lesser guilt is all well above our paygrade.

We don't judge the guilt of a sin.  We cannot do that, so it is idle speculation to do so in any context.  So your initial statement of 'If they don't know' is a loaded minefield.

Best to stick with being able to identify objective sin, its gravity and what SHOULD constitute an informed Catholic conscience.  IF you are so compelled to mention the fact that a person's guilt is mitigated by many things that we cannot see...then you're on more solid ground.  Otherwise you present what appears to be an absurdity and that can be scandalous [in its traditional form].
I certainly agree with you that no one can judge a soul except God. The point I was trying to make is that there is more than just the action itself which God judges. He looks into the heart of the person and judges the motivation behind the action, and takes into consideration such things as the person's knowledge and mental state when they commit the sin. It's very good and merciful of Him to do that.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #253 on: June 29, 2011, 03:28:32 PM »

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
I don;t see how that would be possible. Catholics have a serious obligation to inform themselves of right and wrong and since the Pope has issued an encyclical Humanae Vitae, any ignorance in this matter would itself be a sin, would it not?
I don't see how ignorance could be a sin.

Good point. The ignorance, as such, isn't the sin.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #254 on: June 29, 2011, 03:42:48 PM »


because it doesn't have your Vatican's nihil obstat and imprematur.

Yes.  Essentially.  Because the process of canonization is never ever taken lightly and the mountains of data that are collected generally do not allow the kind of bias that you will find in secular histories.
 
Quote
Shortly before Simon went missing, Bernardine of Feltre, an itinerant Franciscan preacher, had delivered a series of sermons in Trent in which he vilified the local Jewish community. When Simon went missing around Easter, 1475, his father decided that he must have been kidnapped and murdered by Jews. According to his story, the Jews had drained Simon of his blood, supposedly for use in baking their Passover matzohs and for occult rituals that they allegedly practiced in private.

Giving a succinct background to the story, historian Ronnie Po-chia Hsia wrote: "On Easter Sunday 1475, the dead body of a 2-year-old Christian boy named Simon was found in the cellar of a Jewish family's house in Trent, Italy. Town magistrates arrested 18 Jewish men and five Jewish women on the charge of ritual murder--the killing of a Christian child in order to use his blood in Jewish religious rites. In a series of interrogations that involved liberal use of judicial torture, the magistrates obtained the confessions of the Jewish men. Eight were executed in late June, and another committed suicide in jail".[
The leaders of the Jewish community were arrested, and seventeen of them were forced to confess under torture. Fifteen of them, including Samuel, the head of the community, were sentenced to death and burned at the stake. Meanwhile, Simon became the focus of veneration for the local Catholic Church. The local bishop, Hinderbach of Trent, tried to have Simon canonized, producing a large body of documentation of the event and its aftermath.  Over one hundred miracles were directly attributed to Saint Simon within a year of his disappearance, and his cult spread across Italy, Austria and Germany. However, there was initial skepticism and Pope Sixtus IV sent Bishop of Ventimiglia, a learned Dominican, to investigate.  The veneration was restored in 1588 by the Franciscan Pope Sixtus V. The 'saint' was eventually considered a martyr and a patron of kidnap and torture victims. His entry in the old Roman Martyrology for March 24 read:

Tridénti pássio sancti Simeónis púeri, a Judǽis sævíssime trucidáti, qui multis póstea miráculis coruscávit.
(Translated) At Trent, the martyrdom of the boy St. Simeon, who was barbarously murdered by the Jews, but who was afterwards glorified by many miracles.
The Pope removed Simon from the Calendar of Saints in 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Trent
Nah, no bias there: doesn't everyone know that the Jews eat baptized children at Passover? Roll Eyes

Canonization is for the souls of others, not the soul of the one being acknowledged as being holy.  It is not in ANYONE's best interest to lie about the individual concerned.
Bovine digested gastrointestinal efflux.

In 1628 "the holy union," as Kuntsevych billed it, was so shown itself such a collosal failure that the King had called in 1626 for a council between those who submitted to the Vatican and those who remained Orthodox, something the Vatican denounced, but the King and the Vatican's "united" metropolitan promoted
Diversity and Dissent: Negotiating Religious Difference in Central Europe ... By Howard Louthan, Gary B. Cohen, Franz A. J. Szabo
http://books.google.com/books?id=KuzLNXpa-hYC&pg=PA124&dq=Sejm+Orthodox+rights&cd=6#v=onepage&q=Sejm%20Orthodox%20rights&f=false
A history of eastern Europe: crisis and change By Robert Bideleux, Ian Jeffries
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vzw8CHYQobAC&pg=PA132&dq=Sejm+Orthodox+legalize&hl=en&ei=N3kLTou6JqeGsgKX8PTOAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Litauen und Ruthenien: Studien zu einer transkulturellen ... edited by Stefan Rohdewald, David A. Frick, Stefan Wiederkehr
http://books.google.com/books?id=iB8vTQZSSSkC&pg=PA201&dq=Sejm+Orthodox+1596+1629+1633+Jerusalem&hl=en&ei=_HoLTof3BInjsQKUsdySAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sejm%20Orthodox%201596%201629%201633%20Jerusalem&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=iB8vTQZSSSkC&pg=PA197&dq=Sejm+Orthodox+1623&hl=en&ei=j3sLTv78DMGOsALwrpy2AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Sejm%20Orthodox%201623&f=false

In 1637 (the second Vatican commission), the newly legalized Orthodox Metropolitanate of Kiev was sweeping away that ecclesiastial organization in submissio to the Vatican.

Eastern Christianity By Michael Angold
http://books.google.com/books?id=vBy7CTYVBeMC&pg=PA308&dq=Rutsky+Kiev+Mohyla&hl=en&ei=9H0LTqaLKu7fsQKMypCoAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Rutsky%20Kiev%20Mohyla&f=false

Which was accelerating in 1643.  We have already dealt with how the Poles used the canonization process to their own political ends in Galicia in suppressing the Ruthenians and the Orthodox.

So yes.  Indeed I do trust that process as much as I do not trust the secular process for writing, re-writing and re-processing secular history.  Yes.  I do believe Orthodox faithful lied about St. Josaphat's complicity in the thuggery.  I think they lied to themselves about their own...I think they still do in places.
Like here (Orthodoxy in green):

« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 04:02:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #255 on: June 29, 2011, 05:26:09 PM »

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
I don;t see how that would be possible. Catholics have a serious obligation to inform themselves of right and wrong and since the Pope has issued an encyclical Humanae Vitae, any ignorance in this matter would itself be a sin, would it not?
I don't see how ignorance could be a sin.
I don;t see how a Catholic could be ignorant of the teaching on ABC. Anyway, if a person refuses to listen to the truth, then he would be guilty because we have a serious obligation to inform ourselves of what is right and what is wrong. Failure to fulfill that obligation is itself a moral fault. 
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #256 on: June 29, 2011, 05:29:49 PM »

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
I don;t see how that would be possible. Catholics have a serious obligation to inform themselves of right and wrong and since the Pope has issued an encyclical Humanae Vitae, any ignorance in this matter would itself be a sin, would it not?
I don't see how ignorance could be a sin.

Good point. The ignorance, as such, isn't the sin.
Not true. Catholics have an obligation to inform themselves of what is right and what is wrong according to Church teaching.
Apparently you disagree with Bishop Carlson and others who say that R.Catholics have a responsibility to be well informed on the teaching of the RC Church. The Responsibility To Have a Well Informed Faith Life 
Bishop Robert J. Carlson
Diocese of Sioux Falls
http://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/informfa.htm
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #257 on: June 29, 2011, 06:42:01 PM »

Canonization is for the souls of others, not the soul of the one being acknowledged as being holy.  It is not in ANYONE's best interest to lie about the individual concerned.
Quote
Thanks in no small measure to the efforts of Petro Mohyla, by the mid-seventeenth century the cult of St Volodymyr had become quite popular among the Orthodox. At the Orthodox-Uniate negotiations on the religious issue at the Diet of 1650 in Warsaw, Metropolitan Sylvestr Kosov demanded the return of churches and church property from the Uniates 'since their very foundation by St Volodymyr.'  In replying to Kosov, a Uniate bishop noted that the Uniate metropolitan 'would derive his faith not from Volodymyr but from Christ and St Peter, upon whom our church was founded' (Hrushevs'kyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy, vol. 9, pt. 2, p. 1512).  The Uniates, for their part, put a good deal of effort into developing and popularizing the cult of Iosafat Kuntsevych, and, as may be judged from the report of the Warsaw discussions of 1650, had iconic representations of him in their churches.
The Cossacks and religion in early modern Ukraine By Serhii Plokhy
http://books.google.com/books?id=NCzzxNisc1MC&pg=PA243&dq=The+Uniates,+for+their+part,+put+a+good+deal%22&hl=en&ei=2KcLTuvkK86lsQLMk5H0CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Uniates%2C%20for%20their%20part%2C%20put%20a%20good%20deal%22&f=false
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #258 on: June 29, 2011, 07:53:07 PM »

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
I don;t see how that would be possible. Catholics have a serious obligation to inform themselves of right and wrong and since the Pope has issued an encyclical Humanae Vitae, any ignorance in this matter would itself be a sin, would it not?
I don't see how ignorance could be a sin.

Good point. The ignorance, as such, isn't the sin.
Not true. Catholics have an obligation to inform themselves of what is right and what is wrong according to Church teaching.
Apparently you disagree with Bishop Carlson and others who say that R.Catholics have a responsibility to be well informed on the teaching of the RC Church. The Responsibility To Have a Well Informed Faith Life 
Bishop Robert J. Carlson
Diocese of Sioux Falls
http://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/informfa.htm

No, I agree that we have a responsibility to be well informed on the teaching of the Church. But I also acknowledge Wyatt's point that ignorance isn't sin (strictly speaking). I guess you could say it is the consequence of sin.

I don't think our positions are very far apart, if you look closely at what each of us has said.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #259 on: June 29, 2011, 07:58:47 PM »

Anyway, if a person refuses to listen to the truth, then he would be guilty because we have a serious obligation to inform ourselves of what is right and what is wrong. Failure to fulfill that obligation is itself a moral fault. 

I agree.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #260 on: June 29, 2011, 08:45:30 PM »


Bovine digested gastrointestinal efflux.

On you, Professor Cut 'n Paste.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #261 on: June 29, 2011, 08:57:11 PM »


Bovine digested gastrointestinal efflux.

On you, Professor Cut 'n Paste.
I'm out of your shovel range, Sister No Answer nor Documentation.

So, do you believe those Jews who testified to Kuntsevych's holiness,
the Jews [who] spoke favorably of St.Josaphat and testified on his behalf.
although they drank the blood of innocents like Simon of Trent?  Odd that your canonization congregation took their testimony, given what they found out the Jews do with Christian children at Passover, Roll Eyes as
Quote
the Jews had drained Simon of his blood, supposedly for use in baking their Passover matzohs and for occult rituals that they allegedly practiced in private.....The local bishop, Hinderbach of Trent, tried to have Simon canonized, producing a large body of documentation of the event and its aftermath.  Over one hundred miracles were directly attributed to Saint Simon within a year of his disappearance, and his cult spread across Italy, Austria and Germany...The veneration was restored in 1588 by the Franciscan Pope Sixtus V. The 'saint' was eventually considered a martyr and a patron of kidnap and torture victims. His entry in the old Roman Martyrology for March 24 read:

Tridénti pássio sancti Simeónis púeri, a Judǽis sævíssime trucidáti, qui multis póstea miráculis coruscávit.
(Translated) At Trent, the martyrdom of the boy St. Simeon, who was barbarously murdered by the Jews, but who was afterwards glorified by many miracles.
The Pope removed Simon from the Calendar of Saints in 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Trent
Nah, no bias there: doesn't everyone know that the Jews eat baptized children at Passover? Roll Eyes
On "St." Simon, he must be as much a "saint," as Kuntsevych, even more so: his canoization took only a century, Kuntsevych's took nearly three.
Quote
Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no Cool; many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.

What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:

"In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."

(Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)

There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).

This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification, not withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary known as "Glossa" [in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III, 22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap. lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step. Moreover, in most cases, the cultus permitted by beatification, is restricted to a determined province, city, or religious body (Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, xlii). Some, however, have thought otherwise (Arriaga, Theol., V, disp. 7, p. 6; Amicus, Theol., IV, disp. 7, p. 4, no 98; Turrianus on II-II, V, disp. 17, no 6; Del Bene, De S. Inquisit. II, dub. 254).
Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 09:26:22 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #262 on: June 29, 2011, 09:17:27 PM »

not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 Cry Cry

Let's not overstate the matter. People (whether Catholic or otherwise) who don't believe that it's a sin, are not committing mortal sin by doing it.

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).

If someone really doesn't know that murder is wrong, then he/she isn't sinning by committed murder. But, as Wyatt pointed out, that's extremely rare.

That is completely ridiculous.   Sin is any departure from synergeia with God in doing something contrary to His will, whether in knowledge or in ignorance.   I am glad to see that there are at least some Vatican bishops who have maintained a degree of sanity on that matter. 
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,623


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #263 on: June 29, 2011, 09:24:46 PM »

Re ignorance of sin:

Orthodox pre-communion prayers are full of references to sins "known and unknown, committed in knowledge or in ignorance". Food for thought.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #264 on: June 29, 2011, 09:27:10 PM »

Re ignorance of sin:

Orthodox pre-communion prayers are full of references to sins "known and unknown, committed in knowledge or in ignorance". Food for thought.
before we take the Food for Life.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #265 on: June 29, 2011, 09:35:18 PM »

Bovine digested gastrointestinal efflux.

On you, Professor Cut 'n Paste.
I'm out of your shovel range, Sister No Answer nor Documentation.

So, do you believe those Jews who testified to Kuntsevych's holiness,
the Jews [who] spoke favorably of St.Josaphat and testified on his behalf.
although they drank the blood of innocents like Simon of Trent?  Odd that your canonization congregation took their testimony, given what they found out the Jews do with Christian children at Passover, Roll Eyes as
Quote
the Jews had drained Simon of his blood, supposedly for use in baking their Passover matzohs and for occult rituals that they allegedly practiced in private.....The local bishop, Hinderbach of Trent, tried to have Simon canonized, producing a large body of documentation of the event and its aftermath.  Over one hundred miracles were directly attributed to Saint Simon within a year of his disappearance, and his cult spread across Italy, Austria and Germany...The veneration was restored in 1588 by the Franciscan Pope Sixtus V. The 'saint' was eventually considered a martyr and a patron of kidnap and torture victims. His entry in the old Roman Martyrology for March 24 read:

Tridénti pássio sancti Simeónis púeri, a Judǽis sævíssime trucidáti, qui multis póstea miráculis coruscávit.
(Translated) At Trent, the martyrdom of the boy St. Simeon, who was barbarously murdered by the Jews, but who was afterwards glorified by many miracles.
The Pope removed Simon from the Calendar of Saints in 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Trent
Nah, no bias there: doesn't everyone know that the Jews eat baptized children at Passover? Roll Eyes

Sixtus V....where else have I seen that name before, besides "St. Simon the Holy Martyr"'s canonization....ah, yes:
Quote
Sixtus V was the first to distribute this administrative business among different congregations of cardinals; and in his Constitution "Immensa" (22 Jan., 1588) he generalized the idea, already conceived and partly reduced to practice by some of his predecessors, of committing one or another case or a group of cases to the examination, or to the decision, of several cardinals. By a judicious division of administrative matters, he established that permanent organization of these departments of the Curia, which since then have rendered such great services to the Church. The congregations at first established by Sixtus V were officially designated as:

1. for Holy Inquisition;
5. for sacred rites and ceremonies;

This congregation was established by Sixtus V in his Constitution "Immensa", to which frequent reference has already been made. The organization of the Congregation of Rites does not differ from that of other Roman congregations, there being a certain number of cardinals, assisted by a secretary and a surrogate (sostituto), and also by an adequate number of minor officials. Besides these, the Congregation of Rites, in view of special functions to which reference will be made further on, has a great number of prelates, officials, and consultors. The order of precedence among the consultors is determined by length of service in their office. The prelate-officials sit in the following order: first, after the secretary of the congregation, is the sacristan to His Holiness, after whom comes one of the Apostolic prothonotaries permanently attached to this office, next is the dean of the Rota, with the two oldest auditors, after these the master of the Sacred Palace, the promotor of the Faith, and the assessor, or sub-promotor. Although there are no ex-officio consultors, that is, no consultors who by reason of theft office in the Curia are entitled to sit among the consultors of this congregation, there are, nevertheless, certain religious orders — the Friars Minor, the Servites, the Barnabites, the Jesuits — which have obtained from different popes the privilege of being represented by one member each in this college of consultors.

The Congregation of Rites has a double function. It is charged with the direction of the Liturgy of the Latin Church, and therefore, with the supervision of the performance of the rites prescribed by the Church for the celebration of the sacred mysteries and other ecclesiastical functions and offices, and also, with the granting of all privileges, personal or local, temporary or perpetual, which relate to the rites or ceremonies of the Church. It is manifest that the duties of this congregation are of the highest importance: they are concerned with the solemnity of the worship offered to God, the maintenance of the Faith, and the development of devotion and of Christian sentiment among the faithful. The same congregation has another Charge of no less importance: the decision of causes of beatification and canonization of servants of God, and of the veneration of their relics.

In the process of beatification and canonization the most important official is the promotor of the Faith, whose chief duty it is to diligently examine the local investigations carried out by the authority of the bishops, or, at Rome, of the pope, and to bring out in them all that may in any way cast doubt upon the heroic virtue of the servant of God whose cause is under consideration. It is on account of this duty, which implies a systematic opposition to the proofs of sanctity, that the official in question has come to be popularly called "the devil's advocate". It is easy to see, however, that this office conduces to the splendour of the Church and to the honour of the Faith; for to declare a servant of God to be a saint is to propose him as a model to the faithful, and one cannot fail to see how necessary it is that this be done only in the case of one truly heroic, of whose virtue in the heroic degree the pontiff has acquired the greatest moral certainty that human means can establish. It is true that the assistance of the Holy Ghost cannot fail the head of the Church of Jesus Christ in a matter of this kind; but the sovereign pontiff is not on that account exempt from the obligation of acting in the premises with all the circumspection that human prudence requires. And in this effort to attain human certainty the pope is greatly assisted by the promotor of the Faith, who, after a preliminary study of the cause, has to propose objections in regard to the validity of the proceedings and the credibility of the testimony as well as all the objections possibly to be found in the life of the servant of God whose cause is being examined, and in the miracles alleged to have been performed by God at the intercession of that servant. These objections are presented in the three congregations, or meetings, held to consider the question of virtue, and in the other three which are held to consider the question of the miracles. The promotor of the Faith is always selected from among the Consistorial advocates, and always has the assistance of a sub-advocate who takes his place, upon occasion, and who in every instance acts in the name of the promotor. The latter official formerly had the power to appoint, and to remove, his assistant. Besides these two chief officials, the congregation has a special notary for that part of its functions which concerns canonization.

The congregations, or meetings held to consider the question of virtue, like those at which the question of miracles is considered, are generally three in number. The first of them is called the ante-preparatory, and is attended by the prelate-officials and the consultors, under the presidency of the cardinal relator of the cause, who does not vote, but who, upon the votes of the others who are present, determines whether the case deserves to go beyond this hearing. The second meeting, called the preparatory, is attended by all the cardinals of the congregation, by the prelate-officials, and by the consultors. At this meeting the cardinals do not vote, but, after hearing the votes of the others present, determine whether the cause may be carried to a discussion before the pope, which is done only when there is moral certainty of a successful issue. This meeting is the most interesting of all; in it the cause not infrequently falls to the ground. Assuming, however, that the cardinals do not throw out the case definitively, it very often happens that another preparatory meeting called nova preparatoria is required, to elucidate some point relating to the virtue of the servant of God or to the miracles in question. Sometimes there is even a third meeting for the same purpose. The regular third meeting is called the general congregation. It is held under the presidency of the sovereign pontiff himself and is attended by all the cardinals who form the Congregation of Rites, the prelate-officials, and the consultors, all of whom vote — the consultors and the prelate-officials first, and then, when the consultors have withdrawn, the cardinals. The pope decides definitively; as a rule, however, he does not pronounce his judgment at once, but takes time to deliberate and to implore Divine light upon the question. Besides the above meetings, others, called ordinary and special ordinary, are held for the purpose of examining the proceedings and the proof of the fame of sanctity which is necessary for the introduction of a cause of beatification. (See also BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION.)

Returning to the first duty of this congregation, which is the supervision and direction of the Liturgy, it may be said that the inspection, correction, and condemnation of liturgical books of whatever kind pertain to the Congregation of Rites (saving always the prerogatives of the Holy Office in matters of faith), as well as the approbation of new liturgical Offices and calendars, and especially the authoritative solution of all doubts which may arise on liturgical matters. Recourse must be had, therefore, to this congregation for all faculties, indulgences, and dispensations relating to liturgical functions. Thus, for example it is for the Congregation of Rites to grant the faculty to bless sacred vestments, the authorization to expose upon the altar the image of one who has been beatified, or to dedicate an altar to such a servant of God, the right to wear special insignia during choral offices, etc. In the performance of these functions, the Congregation of Rites is assisted by three commissions, established within its own body. The first of these is the Liturgical Commission, created for the revision of Decrees concerning rites. This work was begun and finished by Leo XIII, the congregation publishing an authentic edition of its Decrees (1898-1900). Although the work for which it was created has been done, this commission remains, and is now consulted on more important questions which may arise concerning the sacred rites. The second commission, also instituted by Leo XIII, in 1902, is the Historico-Liturgical Commission, which has the function of judging historical questions concerning the sacred rites. The third is the Commission on Sacred Music, created by Pius X, in 1904, the functions of which are connected with the Motu Proprio on sacred music of 1903 and with other acts of Pius X on the same subject. (See the letter of 8 December, 1903, to Cardinal Respighi, the Decree of 8 January, 1904, the Motu Proprio of the 25 April, 1904, on the Vatican edition of the liturgical books, and the other two Decrees of 11 and 14 August, 1905.)  
Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13136a.htm

On St. Simon and his canonization, lest someone complain of wikipedia:
http://books.google.com/books?id=eZljAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22simon%20of%20trent%22%20sixtus&pg=PA447#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=ASVMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA839&dq=%22simon+of+trent%22+sixtus&hl=en&ei=C619Tb7bLtPvrAHohcz4BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=21&ved=0CJABEOgBMBQ#v=onepage&q=%22simon%20of%20trent%22%20sixtus&f=false
http://www.breviary.net/martyrology/mart03/mart0324.htm
http://www.romancatholicism.org/beatus-andreas.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=-1HS5gCZ1w4C&pg=PA132&dq=simon+of+trent+benedict+xiv&hl=en&ei=iNkLTpeXHPCOsALNhc3zCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=simon%20of%20trent%20benedict%20xiv&f=false
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 10:08:18 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #266 on: June 29, 2011, 10:15:11 PM »

The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #267 on: June 29, 2011, 11:12:09 PM »

The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #268 on: June 29, 2011, 11:18:51 PM »

The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Not Eastern Orthodox moral theology. I have studied my own Catholic moral theology, but I am basing my post on comments that have been made on this very forum.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #269 on: June 29, 2011, 11:25:10 PM »

The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Not Eastern Orthodox moral theology. I have studied my own Catholic moral theology, but I am basing my post on comments that have been made on this very forum.

Has you study been formal and if so who has taught you?
Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.254 seconds with 73 queries.