OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 02:39:58 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Conversation with a Catholic Priest  (Read 5699 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nero
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 115



« on: June 22, 2011, 09:39:05 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 09:41:40 PM by Nero » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2011, 09:54:39 PM »

I want to reply to this but don't have time right now. Just giving this reply to make it easier for me to find the thread later.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,359


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2011, 10:08:36 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...

I too, have some gardening tasks that await me, so I will make a comment regarding #7.

#7 sounds suspiciously like this priest does not follow the Catholic magisterium. The Catholic Church does not view Anglican and Lutheran orders as valid, and neither do the Orthodox. Of course, if Old Catholic orders have intermingled with Anglican and Lutheran orders, then there might be some question as to validity, but Apostolic succession is viewed differently in Orthodoxy than it is in Catholicism.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2011, 11:00:35 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...



Sounds like one of those "spirit of Vatican II" types to me. Not particularly faithful to the traditional teachings of Catholicism.
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2011, 11:03:48 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...
  Shocked

Whoa. You need to talk to some priests that I know.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2011, 11:18:32 PM »

Old priests, especially those in seminary/ordained between Paul VI and JPII, tend to have their own theology.  Was this man a Jesuit?

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough; have you seen youcat?
2) They are interpreted by the Magisterium.  Private interpretation has no place.
3) This is true, and would certainly be true if this man were an archbishop.
4) I wouldn't say they don't actually secure saving grace, but I see what he means and agree with him.  Promoting this "grace" is not a spiritually sound idea, regardless of the truth.
5) Technically this is true, if no Catholic church is around, and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy fufills.  In the context of the priest, I see no basis for this belief.  
6) Mortal implies death, and grave also implies death, I don't see how they are different.  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that knowingly teaching false doctrine is a mortal sin.
7) Again, no basis for this conclusion except for ecumenical hubub.
8  He's correct.  Many of them aren't Christian, however.

Don't listen to him, and if anything, rebuke him.  His salvation and the salvation of others could be at stake.  I have been in your boat for some time now.  I would strongly advise against inquiring Orthodoxy when fueled by angst for a bad priest; inquire out of curiosity, not out of anger.  Know that the traditional Catholic faith and spirituality exists.  If you can get to a Tridentine Mass, FSSP apostolate, or even an SSPX chapel if all else fails, you will find Catholicism there (I am not implying Vatican II is not Catholic).  
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 11:18:50 PM by Scotty » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2011, 11:25:45 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...
I doubt that this priest was a member of the SSPX or FSSP.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,885


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2011, 11:28:16 PM »

I would report him to his bishop.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2011, 11:34:19 PM »

I would report him to his bishop.
Some bishops are quite liberal, whereas others are conservative.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 35,613



« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2011, 11:38:37 PM »

Old priests, especially those in seminary/ordained between Paul VI and JPII, tend to have their own theology.  Was this man a Jesuit?

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough; have you seen youcat?
2) They are interpreted by the Magisterium.  Private interpretation has no place.
3) This is true, and would certainly be true if this man were an archbishop.
4) I wouldn't say they don't actually secure saving grace, but I see what he means and agree with him.  Promoting this "grace" is not a spiritually sound idea, regardless of the truth.
5) Technically this is true, if no Catholic church is around, and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy fufills.  In the context of the priest, I see no basis for this belief.  
6) Mortal implies death, and grave also implies death, I don't see how they are different.  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that knowingly teaching false doctrine is a mortal sin.
7) Again, no basis for this conclusion except for ecumenical hubub.
8  He's correct.  Many of them aren't Christian, however.

Don't listen to him, and if anything, rebuke him.  His salvation and the salvation of others could be at stake.  I have been in your boat for some time now.  I would strongly advise against inquiring Orthodoxy when fueled by angst for a bad priest; inquire out of curiosity, not out of anger.  Know that the traditional Catholic faith and spirituality exists.  If you can get to a Tridentine Mass, FSSP apostolate, or even an SSPX chapel if all else fails, you will find Catholicism there (I am not implying Vatican II is not Catholic).  
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?
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
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2011, 12:26:31 AM »

I would advise (and this is a piece of advice I also need to take myself) that the OP !!!NOT!!! convert to run away from Catholicism, but to run to Orthodoxy. Inevitably there's a mix of both, but when the former is more prevalent than the latter, that's an issue that may reoccur with your new faith. Such an attitude also makes Orthodoxy into more a refugee camp from what we fled from, rather than a home to which we've moved.

So, please, Nero, don't leave Rome because the words of one Roman priest with eccentric views.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2011, 12:42:27 AM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...

I too, have some gardening tasks that await me, so I will make a comment regarding #7.

#7 sounds suspiciously like this priest does not follow the Catholic magisterium. The Catholic Church does not view Anglican and Lutheran orders as valid, and neither do the Orthodox. Of course, if Old Catholic orders have intermingled with Anglican and Lutheran orders, then there might be some question as to validity, but Apostolic succession is viewed differently in Orthodoxy than it is in Catholicism.

Out of curiosity, do you know of any similarly-issued statements that either retract these, or imply otherwise? (Not being snarky, I genuinely don't know if they exist or not, as these seem quite clear on the matter):

The Patriarch of JERUSALEM, 1923

"To His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, First Hierarch of All England, our most beloved and dear brother in our Lord Jesus, Mgr. Randall. Greeting fraternally your beloved to us, Grace, we have the pleasure to address to you the following:

Yesterday we dispatched to Your Grace the following telegram: ‘We have pleasure inform Your Grace that Holy Synod of our Patriarchate after studying in several meetings question Anglican Orders from Orthodox point view resolved their validity.' Today, explaining this telegram, we inform Your Grace that the Holy Synod, having as a motive the resolution passed some time ago by the Church of Constantinople, which is the church having the First Throne between the Orthodox Churches, resolved that the consecrations of bishops and ordinations of priests and deacons of the Anglican Episcopal Church are considered by the Orthodox Church as having the same validity which the Orders of the Roman Church have, because there exist all the elements which are considered necessary from an Orthodox point of view for the recognition of the grace of the Holy Orders from Apostolic Succession. We have great pleasure in communicating to Your Grace, as the First Hierarch of all the Anglican Churches, this resolution of our Church, which constitutes a progress in the pleasing-to-God work of the union of all Churches, and we pray God to grant to Your Grace many years full of health and salvation.

(Signed) DAMIANOS

February 27/March 12, 1923


The Archbishop of CYPRUS, 1923

"To His All-Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch Mgr. Meletios we send brotherly greeting in Christ. Your Holiness – Responding readily to the suggestion made in your reverend Holiness' letter of August 8, 1922, that the autocephalous Church of Cyprus under our presidency should give its opinion as to the validity of Anglican Orders we have placed the matter before the Holy Synod in formal session. After full consideration thereof it has reached the following conclusion: It being understood that the Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Church by the Sacrament of Order was not broken at the Consecration of the first Archbishop of this Church, Matthew Parker, and the visible signs being present in Orders among the Anglicans by which the grace of the Holy Spirit is supplied, which enables the ordinand for the functions of his particular order, there is no obstacle to the recognition by the Orthodox Church of the validity of Anglican Ordinations in the same way that the validity of the ordinations of the Roman, Old Catholic, and Armenian Church are recognized by her. Since clerics coming from these Churches into the bosom of the Orthodox Church are received without reordination we express our judgment that this should also hold in the case of Anglicans – excluding intercommunio (sacramental union), by which one might receive the sacraments indiscriminately at the hands of an Anglican, even one holding the Orthodox dogma, until the dogmatic unity of the two Churches, Orthodox and Anglican, is attained."

Submitting this opinion of our Church to Your All-Holiness, we remain, Affectionately, the least of your brethren in Christ,
Cyril of Cyprus



The Patriarch of ALEXANDRIA, 1930

"To the Most Reverend Dr. Cosmo Lang, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England, Greetings in the New Born Christ The Feast of the Nativity, according to the Flesh, of the Redeemer of our Souls being a most suitable occasion for us, as it were, to visit your Beatitude, our friend, by means of a letter, we come to you hereby with a heart that is filled alike with joy, that "unto us is born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord," and with fervent prayers both for your health and for the peace and stability of the holy Churches of God over which you preside. At the same time, together with our greetings for the Feast, we send you as our gift the news, which we are sure will be good news, to you, that having derived the greatest gratification from the accounts which it has received, both of the marks of honor which were rendered in London, alike by your Grace and by the general body of your Church, to the office which is ours, and also of the happy results which by the favouring breath of the Holy Spirit have emerged from the contact of the Orthodox Delegation with the Lambeth Conference, our Holy Synod of the Metropolitans of the Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Alexandria has proceeded to adopt a resolution recognizing the validity, as from the Orthodox point of view, of the Anglican Ministry. The text of that resolution is as follows:

"The Holy Synod recognizes that the declarations of the Orthodox, quoted in the Summary, were made according to the spirit of Orthodox teaching. Inasmuch as the Lambeth Conference approved the declarations of the Anglican Bishops as a genuine account [1] of the teaching and practice of the Church of England and the Churches in communion with it, it welcomes them as a notable step towards the Union of the two Churches. And since in these declarations, which were endorsed by the Lambeth Conference, complete and satisfying assurance is found as to the Apostolic Succession, as to a real reception of the Lord's Body and blood, as to the Eucharist being thusia hilasterios [2] (Sacrifice), and as to Ordination being a Mystery, the Church of Alexandria withdraws its precautionary negative to the acceptance of the validity of Anglican Ordinations, and, adhering to the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of July 28, 1922, pronounces that if priests, ordained by Anglican Bishops, accede to Orthodoxy, they should not be re-ordained, as persons baptized by Anglicans are not rebaptized."

We rejoice to see the middle wall of partition being thrown down more and more, and we congratulate your Beatitude that under God you have had the felicity of taking the initiative in furthering that work. May the Lord Who was born in Bethlehem give to you and to us the happiness of its completion.

In Alexandria upon the Feast of Christ's Nativity, 1930 Your Beatitude's Beloved Brother in Christ,
Meletios of Alexandria
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2011, 03:19:42 AM »

I wouldn't leave the RCC just because your priest is on the liberal side.  He is just expressing some private opinions about certain subjects.  Catholicism is not some all encompassing, authoritarian system which seeks to suppress all individual opinions on various issues (Except when they have been officially ruled on by the magesterium).  If this priest opinions bother you so much then try going to another parish, but please don't abandon the Church because of this.  

When I was in the process of converting to Orthodoxy way back in 2000, I happened to ask an RC priest if what I was doing was right.  He gave me some liberal lines about how all religions were good and that all we need to do to be saved was just follow the rules of whatever Church we belonged to as best we could.  Now I knew that what this priest said was not the official opinion of the RCC, but I was in so much of a hurry to jump ship that I used his words as both justification for leaving Catholicism and as part of my never ended series of excuses for why i had to give up the Church and go Orthodox.


Bottom line, its one mans opinion.  If you really want to find out what the RCC believes and teaches about the things you have listed then consult the catechism to get straight answers.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 03:21:10 AM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: <Insert your favourite patriotic attribute here> Orthodox
Posts: 5,941



« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2011, 07:19:10 AM »

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough

In what way it is watered down?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2011, 08:00:45 AM »

Old priests, especially those in seminary/ordained between Paul VI and JPII, tend to have their own theology.  Was this man a Jesuit?

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough; have you seen youcat?
2) They are interpreted by the Magisterium.  Private interpretation has no place.
3) This is true, and would certainly be true if this man were an archbishop.
4) I wouldn't say they don't actually secure saving grace, but I see what he means and agree with him.  Promoting this "grace" is not a spiritually sound idea, regardless of the truth.
5) Technically this is true, if no Catholic church is around, and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy fufills.  In the context of the priest, I see no basis for this belief.  
6) Mortal implies death, and grave also implies death, I don't see how they are different.  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that knowingly teaching false doctrine is a mortal sin.
7) Again, no basis for this conclusion except for ecumenical hubub.
8  He's correct.  Many of them aren't Christian, however.

Don't listen to him, and if anything, rebuke him.  His salvation and the salvation of others could be at stake.  I have been in your boat for some time now.  I would strongly advise against inquiring Orthodoxy when fueled by angst for a bad priest; inquire out of curiosity, not out of anger.  Know that the traditional Catholic faith and spirituality exists.  If you can get to a Tridentine Mass, FSSP apostolate, or even an SSPX chapel if all else fails, you will find Catholicism there (I am not implying Vatican II is not Catholic).  
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?
\

 laugh laugh laugh

And we all know that if we ask a million Orthodox faithful, monks and priests the SAME question we'll get the SAME answer from all of them...heh!!....not really.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 35,613



« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2011, 08:07:08 AM »

Old priests, especially those in seminary/ordained between Paul VI and JPII, tend to have their own theology.  Was this man a Jesuit?

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough; have you seen youcat?
2) They are interpreted by the Magisterium.  Private interpretation has no place.
3) This is true, and would certainly be true if this man were an archbishop.
4) I wouldn't say they don't actually secure saving grace, but I see what he means and agree with him.  Promoting this "grace" is not a spiritually sound idea, regardless of the truth.
5) Technically this is true, if no Catholic church is around, and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy fufills.  In the context of the priest, I see no basis for this belief.  
6) Mortal implies death, and grave also implies death, I don't see how they are different.  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that knowingly teaching false doctrine is a mortal sin.
7) Again, no basis for this conclusion except for ecumenical hubub.
8  He's correct.  Many of them aren't Christian, however.

Don't listen to him, and if anything, rebuke him.  His salvation and the salvation of others could be at stake.  I have been in your boat for some time now.  I would strongly advise against inquiring Orthodoxy when fueled by angst for a bad priest; inquire out of curiosity, not out of anger.  Know that the traditional Catholic faith and spirituality exists.  If you can get to a Tridentine Mass, FSSP apostolate, or even an SSPX chapel if all else fails, you will find Catholicism there (I am not implying Vatican II is not Catholic).  
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?
\

 laugh laugh laugh

And we all know that if we ask a million Orthodox faithful, monks and priests the SAME question we'll get the SAME answer from all of them...heh!!....not really.
On what matters to us, yes, really.

On what matters to you, you cares?
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 #16 on: June 23, 2011, 08:31:31 AM »

Old priests, especially those in seminary/ordained between Paul VI and JPII, tend to have their own theology.  Was this man a Jesuit?

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough; have you seen youcat?
2) They are interpreted by the Magisterium.  Private interpretation has no place.
3) This is true, and would certainly be true if this man were an archbishop.
4) I wouldn't say they don't actually secure saving grace, but I see what he means and agree with him.  Promoting this "grace" is not a spiritually sound idea, regardless of the truth.
5) Technically this is true, if no Catholic church is around, and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy fufills.  In the context of the priest, I see no basis for this belief.  
6) Mortal implies death, and grave also implies death, I don't see how they are different.  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that knowingly teaching false doctrine is a mortal sin.
7) Again, no basis for this conclusion except for ecumenical hubub.
8  He's correct.  Many of them aren't Christian, however.

Don't listen to him, and if anything, rebuke him.  His salvation and the salvation of others could be at stake.  I have been in your boat for some time now.  I would strongly advise against inquiring Orthodoxy when fueled by angst for a bad priest; inquire out of curiosity, not out of anger.  Know that the traditional Catholic faith and spirituality exists.  If you can get to a Tridentine Mass, FSSP apostolate, or even an SSPX chapel if all else fails, you will find Catholicism there (I am not implying Vatican II is not Catholic).  
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?
\

 laugh laugh laugh

And we all know that if we ask a million Orthodox faithful, monks and priests the SAME question we'll get the SAME answer from all of them...heh!!....not really.
On what matters to us, yes, really.

On what matters to you, you cares?

Not true at all.  It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.  So that matters to everyone, I would think.    Not to mention the diptychs... laugh
Logged

Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2011, 09:55:22 AM »

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith. 

Any proofs?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2011, 10:01:20 AM »

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.

Not really. I own a catechism. I bought about four years ago when I started dating a Catholic girl and wanted to know when she was restricted to eating fish. I never found an exact answer to my question, it basically says to look at your calendar. It is organized very well and has a good structure for putting an outline of basic beliefs into written form.

Quote
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted

Everything needs to be interpreted, the question is a matter of what you are using to interpret with - which should be in context with all of what your church teaches.

Quote
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)

Seeing how only the Pope is given that kind of dogmatic infallibility, this is probably true. You should not use this as an excuse for disobedience to your bishop.

Quote
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.

While I agree with this statement, I don't know what the official teaching is on this.

Quote
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.

I believe it is considered a mortal sin to in Catholicism to refuse to come to mass on sundays and days of obligation (major feast days) and worship God and receive Christ in the Eucharist. I used the word "refuse" for a reason. One should worship God for the sake of worshipping Him, not going through the motions to meet a requirement - which is where I think the question of "is it really necessary" comes from (I mean this as a reflection on the attitude of some individuals who may ask this question, not any official teaching).

Quote
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.

I don't know. The Catholic teaching on "mortal" sin has a number of criteria that need to be met, some of which involve the interior state of the heart and mind which we may even deceive ourselves on discerning. Keep in mind, there are at least two people for whom eating the wrong kind of fruit was a "mortal" sin. As far as "grave", I believe that only applies to the act itself regardless of circumstance (knowledge, ignorance, willful, out of ignorance, etc).

Quote
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.

This is not what your church teaches.

Quote
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

I'm not touching this one. This statement could be interpreted a number of ways, some of which could be true, others far from true.

Quote
So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...

My personal opinion would be to find a priest who doesn't tell you to be disobedient to your bishops and interpret your church's teaching however you feel like.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Hamartolos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 338


St. Gregory the Theologian, intercede for my soul.


« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2011, 10:02:09 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 10:03:49 AM by Hamartolos » Logged

Formerly known as "mctaviix"
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2011, 10:05:00 AM »

And we all know that if we ask a million Orthodox faithful, monks and priests the SAME question we'll get the SAME answer from all of them

I recently met someone in the process of converting to orthodoxy from Anglicanism, this is actually one of the reasons he said he is coming embracing Orthodoxy.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938



« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2011, 10:25:30 AM »

Not true at all.  It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.

Challenge: Provide examples from print media (i.e. not anecdotes, not conversations, not fora or message boards, but magazines, newspapers, books where the author is writing in an official capacity, or other publications, including official websites) where the presentation of a Truth of the Faith (let's keep it simple and restrict this to the Creed) is shown to "vary broadly" across at least three canonical jurisdictions.

Had you said that Orthodox Christians vary broadly on the truths of the faith, I might have accepted that. But you said "jurisdictions." I often tell people that Russian, Greek and other Orthodox Churches all hold the same Faith. If what you allege is true, it is important that it be clear to all.
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 23, 2011, 10:33:38 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

The problem is that the west defines things in different terms than does the east. So what to us are mere differences of opinion (see, for example, the toll house discussions), Catholics expect there to be a 'dogmatic' answer to everything.  Our definition of doctrine and dogma is far stricter than is theirs, hence for them, it is easy to accuse us of being 'wishy-washy' about certain things.

That being said, we should not delude ourselves into boasting that if you ask a million of us the same question (clergy, monastics and laity alike) that you will get the same answer. To make such a ridiculous claim, you only open our Faith to a scholastic led 'logical' attack based upon contradictions. Try valid, and differing, Orthodox answers to 'the calendar', 'ecumenism', 'toll houses', 'Church Slavonic and/or Koine Greek' and 'how do you choose a Bishop' just to name a few. The Romans will give you what they think to be a 'dogmatic' and 'uniform' answer from their end. We will argue with them till the proverbial cows come home that these are not dogmatic differences (with the exceptions of course coming from our 'True' Orthodox brothers and sisters) while the Romans will shake their heads and sigh. That's the way its been for over 1200 years and it is not likely to change any millennium soon. (That doesn't mean we should stop talking though...)
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 23, 2011, 11:36:54 AM »

You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith.
Actually, this priest is doing you a favor: he's showing you that, whatever decision you make, whatever Church in which you choose to participate, you are engaging in interpretation. It's not that he's saying that "I hereby proclaim that you are free to interpret as you choose", but "Everyone, just by being human, interprets according to his or her understanding and experiences".
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 11:38:29 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 1,944



« Reply #24 on: June 23, 2011, 11:52:44 AM »

And we all know that if we ask a million Orthodox faithful, monks and priests the SAME question we'll get the SAME answer from all of them

I recently met someone in the process of converting to orthodoxy from Anglicanism, this is actually one of the reasons he said he is coming embracing Orthodoxy.
I think that in the modern western world this is because everyone tends to draw from the same resources.

...And I can think of several hot button questions that will get more than one answer, and often vehemently opposed ones at that. I won't ask them in this thread.

TO THE OP: The Orthodox Church is the true Church, but one should not join it just because they are angrily walking away from their first choice. (Though God takes us all, regardless of our motives.) Talk with an Orthodox priest or two. Heck, talk with a couple of Catholic priests while you're at it. Figure out what's going on, and pray.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 11:53:59 AM by Agabus » Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL ORTHODOX CHURCH
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 35,613



« Reply #25 on: June 23, 2011, 12:03:28 PM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?
A desperate search for proof that we need their "infallible" supreme pontiff and his supremacy over the Church.

I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.
 
Desperation when the facts don't back them up. They resort to mantras "if we say it enough times, it will be true," though it doesn't veracity doesn't accrew with any repetition.

There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.
Don't hold your breath.

That said, to the OP: come for Orthodoxy, not against the Vatican.  Talk to one of the Vatican's more traditional priests.  Pure gold fears no fire.
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
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #26 on: June 23, 2011, 12:12:17 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...

How are we supposed to comment, when none of us were present for the conversation, and don't know whether you are taking the priest's statements out of context?
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 35,613



« Reply #27 on: June 23, 2011, 12:27:28 PM »

Old priests, especially those in seminary/ordained between Paul VI and JPII, tend to have their own theology.  Was this man a Jesuit?

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough; have you seen youcat?
2) They are interpreted by the Magisterium.  Private interpretation has no place.
3) This is true, and would certainly be true if this man were an archbishop.
4) I wouldn't say they don't actually secure saving grace, but I see what he means and agree with him.  Promoting this "grace" is not a spiritually sound idea, regardless of the truth.
5) Technically this is true, if no Catholic church is around, and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy fufills.  In the context of the priest, I see no basis for this belief.  
6) Mortal implies death, and grave also implies death, I don't see how they are different.  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that knowingly teaching false doctrine is a mortal sin.
7) Again, no basis for this conclusion except for ecumenical hubub.
8  He's correct.  Many of them aren't Christian, however.

Don't listen to him, and if anything, rebuke him.  His salvation and the salvation of others could be at stake.  I have been in your boat for some time now.  I would strongly advise against inquiring Orthodoxy when fueled by angst for a bad priest; inquire out of curiosity, not out of anger.  Know that the traditional Catholic faith and spirituality exists.  If you can get to a Tridentine Mass, FSSP apostolate, or even an SSPX chapel if all else fails, you will find Catholicism there (I am not implying Vatican II is not Catholic).  
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?
\

 laugh laugh laugh

And we all know that if we ask a million Orthodox faithful, monks and priests the SAME question we'll get the SAME answer from all of them...heh!!....not really.
On what matters to us, yes, really.

On what matters to you, you cares?

Not true at all.  It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.  So that matters to everyone, I would think.    Not to mention the diptychs... laugh
Mention the diptychs.  The Vatican isn't in any of them. The only difference is that the diptychs of the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Pope of Alexandria, the Patriarchs of Antiocha, Jerusalem, Serbia and Romania, and the Archbishops of Cyprus, Greece and Albania do not commemorate Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA in them, under the canonical fiction that he is under the Patriarch of Moscow, whom they do commemorate. Since Met. Jonhah and the rest of the OCA was seated on the Episcopal Assembly here according to the diptychs, de facto has become de jure, per the signed Chambesy accords ratified by Council of the autocephalous primates and the agreement of the OCA.  

As to publications, the publications in Russia and Greece compared to those published in the US are far closer than the Vatican's publications that circulate in its Archdiocese of Chicago.
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: 5,670



« Reply #28 on: June 23, 2011, 02:35:57 PM »

I would advise (and this is a piece of advice I also need to take myself) that the OP !!!NOT!!! convert to run away from Catholicism, but to run to Orthodoxy. Inevitably there's a mix of both, but when the former is more prevalent than the latter, that's an issue that may reoccur with your new faith. Such an attitude also makes Orthodoxy into more a refugee camp from what we fled from, rather than a home to which we've moved.

So, please, Nero, don't leave Rome because the words of one Roman priest with eccentric views.

I, too, am bothered when people treat Orthodoxy "refugee camp". In some cases, this is done by Catholics who have no intention of converting to Orthodoxy themselves, but rather push others towards it. For example, this statement by the Catholic priest Fr. J. Steele:

Quote
    The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

    I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

    Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

(OICWR = Orthodox in Communion with Rome)
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #29 on: June 23, 2011, 03:01:03 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?

That's whatcha call ecumenism.

Well, except if it's said by a traditional Catholic, in which case it's offensive and "not in the spirit of Vatican II".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 35,613



« Reply #30 on: June 23, 2011, 03:49:30 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek,
This gets dummer with every reflection. Old Calendar Greeks and Russians are quite similar in their viewpoints, and the Greeks are divided in the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus and Greece but they act as one Greek Church.

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian,
Hungarian?
Quote from: Scott Hahn
Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.
My brothers and I lost our father decades ago, and yet we remained a family, although we all had moved out on our own before his death.
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
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 23, 2011, 03:54:21 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek,
This gets dummer with every reflection. Old Calendar Greeks and Russians are quite similar in their viewpoints, and the Greeks are divided in the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus and Greece but they act as one Greek Church.

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian,
Hungarian?
Quote from: Scott Hahn
Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.
My brothers and I lost our father decades ago, and yet we remained a family, although we all had moved out on our own before his death.

Well put and I would add that our Father is not lost, He is in Heaven - not in Rome!
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2011, 04:08:32 PM »

If you decide to become Orthodox that is your choice, but if you do I hope you find a better reason than just the fact that you found a RC priest who holds to some views which our Church views as heretical. He is certainly not holding beliefs which are representative of the Catholic Church.
Logged
Nero
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 115



« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2011, 04:31:23 PM »

Quote
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?

I have over the last few months - The Divine Liturgy is absolutely beyond compare.

Certainly I know that I should NEVER become Orthodox because one Catholic priest may be wrong. The thought of conversion is four or five months old by now. Recently I've been hoping for some sign or argument that'll help me stay with the Catholic Church, because then I wouldn't disappoint the priests and parishioners whom I'm actively involved with.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2011, 07:31:42 PM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 07:33:01 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2011, 07:34:53 PM »

Quote
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?

I have over the last few months - The Divine Liturgy is absolutely beyond compare.

Certainly I know that I should NEVER become Orthodox because one Catholic priest may be wrong. The thought of conversion is four or five months old by now. Recently I've been hoping for some sign or argument that'll help me stay with the Catholic Church, because then I wouldn't disappoint the priests and parishioners whom I'm actively involved with.

If you have to look this hard to find someone to argue you back into the papal Church, you are too far gone to worry about it.

To me it sounds exceptionally silly to even suggest such a thing.

What do you care what people think about you?  If you find truth in Orthodoxy...great.

M.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #36 on: June 24, 2011, 08:53:30 AM »

Quote
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?

I have over the last few months - The Divine Liturgy is absolutely beyond compare.

Certainly I know that I should NEVER become Orthodox because one Catholic priest may be wrong. The thought of conversion is four or five months old by now. Recently I've been hoping for some sign or argument that'll help me stay with the Catholic Church, because then I wouldn't disappoint the priests and parishioners whom I'm actively involved with.

If you have to look this hard to find someone to argue you back into the papal Church, you are too far gone to worry about it.

To me it sounds exceptionally silly to even suggest such a thing.

What do you care what people think about you?  If you find truth in Orthodoxy...great.

M.

To suggest what?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 35,613



« Reply #37 on: June 24, 2011, 09:11:23 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well. 

Perhaps it has taken you years to figure out how to misconstrue them into disagreement, no?
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
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #38 on: June 24, 2011, 09:27:25 AM »

I have over the last few months - The Divine Liturgy is absolutely beyond compare.

Certainly I know that I should NEVER become Orthodox because one Catholic priest may be wrong. The thought of conversion is four or five months old by now. Recently I've been hoping for some sign or argument that'll help me stay with the Catholic Church, because then I wouldn't disappoint the priests and parishioners whom I'm actively involved with.
Don't rely only on your feelings and "signs", just quietly read books, keep constantly being interested. And if you do so, surely you will easily see that Orthodox Church is the true Church.

Considering the Pope dogma, the answer from the Orthodox Church on the dogma of Papal Infallibility was given on the Meeting of Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches Held in Connection with the Quingentenary Celebrations of the Russian Orthodox Church's Attainment to Autocephalous Status (Moscow, 1948). It was pointed to the works of Döllinger and some other historians, but his name was mentioned the most frequently and he was the most cited.

Look in this topic, I've posted there several links to free online books:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35344.0.html

If you are looking for good understanding of Orthodox theology, read any books or articles by bishop Atanasije Jevtic, pupil of St. Justin Popovic. Here is interview with him with English subtitles, about Liturgy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHB4Upu0dho

Note that Orthodox Church is also called Catholic Church, as in the Creed, and in official documents as well. It is only not Roman Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 09:45:32 AM by Vadim » Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,392



WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 24, 2011, 09:29:16 AM »

Out of curiosity, do you know of any similarly-issued statements that either retract these, or imply otherwise? (Not being snarky, I genuinely don't know if they exist or not, as these seem quite clear on the matter):

The Patriarch of JERUSALEM, 1923

"To His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, First Hierarch of All England, our most beloved and dear brother in our Lord Jesus, Mgr. Randall. Greeting fraternally your beloved to us, Grace, we have the pleasure to address to you the following:

Yesterday we dispatched to Your Grace the following telegram: ‘We have pleasure inform Your Grace that Holy Synod of our Patriarchate after studying in several meetings question Anglican Orders from Orthodox point view resolved their validity.' Today, explaining this telegram, we inform Your Grace that the Holy Synod, having as a motive the resolution passed some time ago by the Church of Constantinople, which is the church having the First Throne between the Orthodox Churches, resolved that the consecrations of bishops and ordinations of priests and deacons of the Anglican Episcopal Church are considered by the Orthodox Church as having the same validity which the Orders of the Roman Church have, because there exist all the elements which are considered necessary from an Orthodox point of view for the recognition of the grace of the Holy Orders from Apostolic Succession. We have great pleasure in communicating to Your Grace, as the First Hierarch of all the Anglican Churches, this resolution of our Church, which constitutes a progress in the pleasing-to-God work of the union of all Churches, and we pray God to grant to Your Grace many years full of health and salvation.

(Signed) DAMIANOS

February 27/March 12, 1923


The Archbishop of CYPRUS, 1923

"To His All-Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch Mgr. Meletios we send brotherly greeting in Christ. Your Holiness – Responding readily to the suggestion made in your reverend Holiness' letter of August 8, 1922, that the autocephalous Church of Cyprus under our presidency should give its opinion as to the validity of Anglican Orders we have placed the matter before the Holy Synod in formal session. After full consideration thereof it has reached the following conclusion: It being understood that the Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Church by the Sacrament of Order was not broken at the Consecration of the first Archbishop of this Church, Matthew Parker, and the visible signs being present in Orders among the Anglicans by which the grace of the Holy Spirit is supplied, which enables the ordinand for the functions of his particular order, there is no obstacle to the recognition by the Orthodox Church of the validity of Anglican Ordinations in the same way that the validity of the ordinations of the Roman, Old Catholic, and Armenian Church are recognized by her. Since clerics coming from these Churches into the bosom of the Orthodox Church are received without reordination we express our judgment that this should also hold in the case of Anglicans – excluding intercommunio (sacramental union), by which one might receive the sacraments indiscriminately at the hands of an Anglican, even one holding the Orthodox dogma, until the dogmatic unity of the two Churches, Orthodox and Anglican, is attained."

Submitting this opinion of our Church to Your All-Holiness, we remain, Affectionately, the least of your brethren in Christ,
Cyril of Cyprus



The Patriarch of ALEXANDRIA, 1930

"To the Most Reverend Dr. Cosmo Lang, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England, Greetings in the New Born Christ The Feast of the Nativity, according to the Flesh, of the Redeemer of our Souls being a most suitable occasion for us, as it were, to visit your Beatitude, our friend, by means of a letter, we come to you hereby with a heart that is filled alike with joy, that "unto us is born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord," and with fervent prayers both for your health and for the peace and stability of the holy Churches of God over which you preside. At the same time, together with our greetings for the Feast, we send you as our gift the news, which we are sure will be good news, to you, that having derived the greatest gratification from the accounts which it has received, both of the marks of honor which were rendered in London, alike by your Grace and by the general body of your Church, to the office which is ours, and also of the happy results which by the favouring breath of the Holy Spirit have emerged from the contact of the Orthodox Delegation with the Lambeth Conference, our Holy Synod of the Metropolitans of the Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Alexandria has proceeded to adopt a resolution recognizing the validity, as from the Orthodox point of view, of the Anglican Ministry. The text of that resolution is as follows:

"The Holy Synod recognizes that the declarations of the Orthodox, quoted in the Summary, were made according to the spirit of Orthodox teaching. Inasmuch as the Lambeth Conference approved the declarations of the Anglican Bishops as a genuine account [1] of the teaching and practice of the Church of England and the Churches in communion with it, it welcomes them as a notable step towards the Union of the two Churches. And since in these declarations, which were endorsed by the Lambeth Conference, complete and satisfying assurance is found as to the Apostolic Succession, as to a real reception of the Lord's Body and blood, as to the Eucharist being thusia hilasterios [2] (Sacrifice), and as to Ordination being a Mystery, the Church of Alexandria withdraws its precautionary negative to the acceptance of the validity of Anglican Ordinations, and, adhering to the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of July 28, 1922, pronounces that if priests, ordained by Anglican Bishops, accede to Orthodoxy, they should not be re-ordained, as persons baptized by Anglicans are not rebaptized."

We rejoice to see the middle wall of partition being thrown down more and more, and we congratulate your Beatitude that under God you have had the felicity of taking the initiative in furthering that work. May the Lord Who was born in Bethlehem give to you and to us the happiness of its completion.

In Alexandria upon the Feast of Christ's Nativity, 1930 Your Beatitude's Beloved Brother in Christ,
Meletios of Alexandria


I believe that many would say the Anglicans ended up retracting these on their own about 40 years after the last of these statements when they started ordaining women.  The Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA certainly had some strong words on the subject in his address to the inaugural assembly of the Anglican Church in North America back in 2009.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 24, 2011, 09:47:26 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

Teachings or essential doctrine? There is a difference. I could cite many books by Catholic writers that do not accurately reflect the magesterium. So what?

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

We can exchange such examples until the cows come home, but they prove nothing regarding the consistency of the teachings of Orthodox doctrine or, for that matter, those of your Church.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 09:48:06 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 24, 2011, 10:15:15 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

Teachings or essential doctrine? There is a difference. I could cite many books by Catholic writers that do not accurately reflect the magesterium. So what?

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

We can exchange such examples until the cows come home, but they prove nothing regarding the consistency of the teachings of Orthodox doctrine or, for that matter, those of your Church.

Seems you've gotten to my point ahead of me.

I can direct you to the documents containing the most cogent points of the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church.  I can direct you to a curial office charged with the interpretation of doctrinal teachings.  I can point you to documents that explain what doctrine is, and theology in Catholic terms, so that we can know what is taught as truth.  These same documents demonstrate and state that Truth makes doctrine, rather than doctrine "making" truth.  I can identify those members of the Catholic hierarchy who are charged with the magisterial teaching office: bishops, pastors and pope. 

Where would I go to find such a synthesis for Orthodoxy?
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,410


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 24, 2011, 11:14:15 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well. 

Indeed.  You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation. 

This an official request.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 35,613



« Reply #43 on: June 24, 2011, 11:56:11 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

Teachings or essential doctrine? There is a difference. I could cite many books by Catholic writers that do not accurately reflect the magesterium. So what?

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

We can exchange such examples until the cows come home, but they prove nothing regarding the consistency of the teachings of Orthodox doctrine or, for that matter, those of your Church.

Seems you've gotten to my point ahead of me.

Where would I go to find such a synthesis for Orthodoxy?
Let's see.
I can direct you to the documents containing the most cogent points of the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church.

The decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the Divine Services.  Lex orandi, lex crendendi.  That those in the east abandon that when they submit to the Vatican reflects on it, not the Catholic Church.

We've cited your documents from the Vatican, to which you disagree.

I can direct you to a curial office charged with the interpretation of doctrinal teachings.

The episcopalte in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, in particular the 15 primates: if two heads are better than one....

Your curial office hmmms and haws, and can't give a straight answer on what your "infallible" teachings are.  Their main skills seems to be hair-splitting, obfuscation, and equivacation.

For instance, your supreme pontiff issued Humanae Vitae, which contradicted the teaching of the majority of bishops at the time and many since. But since your curia and its supreme head won't play the ex cathedra card, its status as "infallible" from the "ordinary magisterium" is in limbo.

I can point you to documents that explain what doctrine is, and theology in Catholic terms, so that we can know what is taught as truth.

you mean the ones with "nihil obstat" and "imprematur"?

Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

No guarantees here.  Some assurances to the best of one's ability.  But there's much too much emphasis on this as some sort of hard and fast guarantee of something.  Quoting them is actually rather pompous.

M.

but as for the Orthodox, there are a number of the decisions of Pan Orthodox Councils and the Holy Synods. For example:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
Quote
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
To All the Bishops Everywhere, Beloved in the Holy Ghost, Our Venerable, Most Dear Brethren; and to their Most Pious Clergy; and to All the Genuine Orthodox Sons of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: Brotherly Salutation in the Holy Spirit, and Every Good From God, and Salvation.

The holy, evangelical and divine Gospel of Salvation should be set forth by all in its original simplicity, and should evermore be believed in its unadulterated purity, even the same as it was revealed to His holy Apostles by our Savior, who for this very cause, descending from the bosom of God the Father, made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant (Phil. ii. 7); even the same, also, as those Apostles, who were ear and eye witnesses, sounded it forth, like clear-toned trumpets, to all that are under the sun (for their sound is gone out into all lands, and their words into the ends of the world); and, last of all, the very same as the many great and glorious Fathers of the Catholic Church in all parts of the earth, who heard those Apostolic voices, both by their synodical and their individual teachings handed it down to all everywhere, and even unto us. But the Prince of Evil, that spiritual enemy of man's salvation, as formerly in Eden, craftily assuming the pretext of profitable counsel, he made man to become a transgressor of the divinely-spoken command. so in the spiritual Eden, the Church of God, he has from time to time beguiled many; and, mixing the deleterious drugs of heresy with the clear streams of orthodox doctrine, gives of the potion to drink to many of the innocent who live unguardedly, not giving earnest heed to the things they have heard (Heb. ii. 10), and to what they have been told by their fathers (Deut. xxxii. 7), in accordance with the Gospel and in agreement with the ancient Doctors; and who, imagining that the preached and written Word of the LORD and the perpetual witness of His Church are not sufficient for their souls' salvation, impiously seek out novelties, as we change the fashion of our garments, embracing a counterfeit of the evangelical doctrine.

2. Hence have arisen manifold and monstrous heresies, which the Catholic Church, even from her infancy, taking unto her the whole armor of God, and assuming the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. vi. 13-17,) has been compelled to combat. She has triumphed over all unto this day, and she will triumph for ever, being manifested as mightier and more illustrious after each struggle.

3. Of these heresies, some already have entirely failed, some are in decay, some have wasted away, some yet flourish in a greater or less degree vigorous until the time of their return to the Faith, while others are reproduced to run their course from their birth to their destruction. For being the miserable cogitations and devices of miserable men, both one and the other, struck with the thunderbolt of the anathema of the seven Ecumenical Councils, shall vanish away, though they may last a thousand years; for the orthodoxy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the living Word of God, alone endures for ever, according to the infallible promise of the LORD: the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. xviii. 18). Certainly, the mouths of ungodly and heretical men, however bold, however plausible and fair-speaking, however smooth they may be, will not prevail against the orthodox doctrine winning, its way silently and without noise. But, wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? (Jer. xii. 1.) Why are the ungodly exalted and lifted up as the cedars of Lebanon (Ps. xxxvii. 35), to defile the peaceful worship of God? The reason of this is mysterious, and the Church, though daily praying that this cross, this messenger of Satan, may depart from her, ever hears from the Lord: My grace is sufficient for thee, my strength is made perfect in weakness (2. Cor. xii. 9). Wherefore she gladly glories in her infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon her, and that they which are approved may be made manifest (1. Cor. x. 19).

4. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10).

5. The new doctrine, that "the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son," is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering "which proceedeth from the Father." (Symbol of Faith).

i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.

ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.

iii. It reproaches as imperfect, dark, and difficult to be understood, the previous Confession of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nice and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.

v. It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. Yet was this quickly to be corrected and augmented, and consequently the whole theological doctrine of the Catholic Fathers was to be subjected to change, as if, forsooth, a new property even in regard to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity had been revealed.

vi. It clandestinely found an entrance at first in the Churches of the West, "a wolf in sheep's clothing," that is, under the signification not of procession, according to the Greek meaning in the Gospel and the Creed, but under the signification of mission, as Pope Martin explained it to the Confessor Maximus, and as Anastasius the Librarian explained it to John VIII.

vii. It exhibits incomparable boldness, acting without authority, and forcibly puts a false stamp upon the Creed, which is the common inheritance of Christianity.

viii. It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the nations.

ix. It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes, Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.

x. It has been condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East.

xi. It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.

xii. As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed. Among these novelties may be numbered sprinkling instead of baptism, denial of the divine Cup to the Laity, elevation of one and the same bread broken, the use of wafers, unleavened instead of real bread, the disuse of the Benediction in the Liturgies, even of the sacred Invocation of the All-holy and Consecrating Spirit, the abandonment of the old Apostolic Mysteries of the Church, such as not anointing baptized infants, or their not receiving the Eucharist, the exclusion of married men from the Priesthood, the infallibility of the Pope and his claim as Vicar of Christ, and the like. Thus it was that the interpolation led to the setting aside of the old Apostolic pattern of well nigh all the Mysteries and all doctrine, a pattern which the ancient, holy, and orthodox Church of Rome kept, when she was the most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

xiii. It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.

xiv. It seemed strange, unheard of, and blasphemous, even to those reputed Christian communions, which, before its origin, had been for other just causes for ages cut off from the Catholic fold.

xv. It has not yet been even plausibly defended out of the Scriptures, or with the least reason out of the Fathers, from the accusations brought against it, notwithstanding all the zeal and efforts of its supporters. The doctrine bears all the marks of error arising out of its nature and peculiarities. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says: "If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic" (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical Council....
Quote
The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion
To the most Sacred and Most Divinely-beloved Brethren in Christ the Metropolitans and Bishops, and their sacred and venerable Clergy, and all the godly and orthodox Laity of the Most Holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople.

"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their own conversation:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines." (Heb. xiii. 7, Cool.
These same documents demonstrate and state that Truth makes doctrine, rather than doctrine "making" truth.
Indeed!
Quote
9. In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold. In this Encyclical, he addresses those who at different times have gone over from different Christian Communions, and embraced the Papacy, and of course are favorable to him, extending his arguments also to the Orthodox, either particularly or without naming them; and, citing our divine and holy Fathers (p. 3, 1.14-18; p. 4, 1.19; p. 9, 1.6; and pp. 17, 23), he manifestly calumniates them and us their successors and descendants: them, as if they admitted readily the Papal commands and rescripts without question because issuing from the Popes is undoubted arbiters of the Catholic Church; us, as unfaithful to their examples (for thus he trespasses on the Fold committed to us by God), as severed from our Fathers, as careless of our sacred trusts, and of the soul's salvation of our spiritual children. Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne."

10. Each one of our brethren and sons in Christ who have been piously brought up and instructed, wisely regarding the wisdom given him from God, will decide that the words of the present Bishop of Rome, like those of his schismatical predecessors, are not words of peace, as he affirms (p. 7,1.Cool, and of benevolence, but words of deceit and guile, tending to self-aggrandizement, agreeably to the practice of his antisynodical predecessors. We are therefore sure, that even as heretofore, so hereafter the Orthodox will not be beguiled. For the word of our LORD is sure (John x. 5), A stranger will they not follow, but flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.

11. For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The Truth is the other way.

I can identify those members of the Catholic hierarchy who are charged with the magisterial teaching office: bishops,
Like Cardinal Martini? Those which issued the Winnipeg Statement? Those which wrote the Dutch Cathecism?
pastors
like those teaching "liberation theology"? Or the priest responsible for the OP?
and pope.
Like Popes Alexander VI? Zosimos? Vigilius? John XXIII? Honorius? Stephen (V)VII ?
Quote
The Annuario Pontificio included this Stephen as a Pope until the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) declared that he was not, and gave all papal Stephens that followed dual numberings.  From 752 to 942, seven popes reigned bearing the name of Stephen. Originally, they were not otherwise distinguished, as regnal numbering was not applied to popes until the 10th century. They were named Stephen II to VIII respectively after their death. The next Pope to take the name Stephen in 1057, however, after numbering had become a custom, was called Stephen IX during his life and signed all his documents "Stephanus Nonus Papa".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope-elect_Stephen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Stephen_(VI)_VII

that's him on the left disagreeing with his predecessor as supreme pontiff Formosus, on the right.

The Catholic Church has its own bishops, primates, pastors and even a pope


Btw, the CCC was billed as "such a synthesis for" the Vatican's teaching, but repeatedly when we cite it as such, such claims are denied.

and since you claim to see things none of us see, the onus is on you to point them out, if indeed they exist.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 12:08:20 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 24, 2011, 01:42:57 PM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well. 

Indeed.  You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation. 

This an official request.


That's not a problem Schultz.  Mother has a broken hip and bowel cancer, generally in that order which is out of order in order of magnitude,  so I am pretty busy right now but I'll do what I can over the weekend to pull them out of my library.

Do I need full citations or will Author/Title do?
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   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 0.229 seconds with 72 queries.